Brief History of Series Authority Work

March 24th, 2010

Our Authority Librarian, Karen, provided me with this extremely useful and detailed history of the way series entries are handled in both bibliographic records and authority records.

Series description has changed and evolved over time along with other descriptive cataloging practices.  Most changes have been realized in LC policies and standards as more libraries chose to follow LC practices.

Prior to Sept 1, 1989, the Library of Congress policy was to trace only some series.  They would create series authority records (SARs) for all series cataloged and record the tracing decisions on the SARs.

In the 1960’s LC developed the MARC format for the computerized storage and exchange of bibliographic information.  As series policies have changed, the MARC format fields dealing with series have also changed.

Up to 1978 when AACR2 was published (see below), MARC had the following fields defined for the input of series information:  (All definitions are from Its Marc http://itsmarc.com/crs/Bib1468.htm)

400 –   This field contains an author/title series statement in which the author portion is a personal name or a possessive pronoun that refers back to the name in the 100 main entry field in the record. Field 400 is both a series statement and a series added entry. When a 400 field is present, a corresponding 800 field is not used, since it would duplicate the 400 field

410 –   This field contains an author/title series statement in which the author portion is a corporate name or a pronoun representing it that refers back to a 110 field . Field 410 is both a series statement and a series added entry. When a 410 field is present, a corresponding 810 field is not used, since it would duplicate the 410 field.

411 –    This field contained an author/title series statement in which the author portion is a conference/meeting name or a pronoun representing it that refers back to a 111 field . Field 411 is both a series statement and a series added entry. When a 411 field is present, a corresponding 811 field is not used, since it would duplicate the 411 field.

The descriptions of the indicator values, subfields and input conventions associated with the 400, 410, 411 fields corresponded to those for the 100, 110, and 111 fields respectively, with the addition of subfields specifically for series:

$x – ISSN #

$v – Volume designation

440 –   This field contains a series statement consisting of a series title alone.  Used when the series statement and the controlled added entry form of the series title are the same. Field 440 is both a series statement and a series added entry.

490 –   This field contains a series statement for which no series added entry is to be made, or for which the series added entry is in a controlled form different from that which appears in the series statement. Field 490 does not serve as a series added entry. When field 490 is used and a series added entry is desired, both the series statement (field 490) and a corresponding series added entry (800-830 fields) are separately recorded in the bibliographic record.

800 –   This field contains an author/title series added entry in which the author portion is a personal name. It is used when the added entry form of a series is different from that in the corresponding series statement. An 800 field is usually justified by a series statement (field 490 ) or a general note (field 500 ) relating to the series.

810 –   This field contains an author/title series added entry in which the author portion is a corporate name. It is used when the added entry form of a series is different from that in the corresponding series statement. An 810 field is usually justified by a series statement (field 490 ) or a general note (field 500 ) relating to the series.

811 –   This field contains an author/title series added entry in which the author portion is a meeting or conference name. It is used when the added entry form of a series is different from that in the corresponding series statement. An 811 field is usually justified by a series statement (field 490 ) or a general note (field 500 ) relating to the series.

830 –   This field contains a title series added entry in which the entry of the series is a conventional title.  It is used when the added entry form of a series title is different from that in the corresponding series statement.

840 –   This field contains a title series added entry in which the entry of the series is under uniform title . It is used when the added entry form of a series title is different from that in the corresponding series statement.

All of the 8XX fields are justified by a series statement (field 490) or a general note (field 500 ) relating to the series.  No 8XX series added entry field was used in conjunction with a series statement in the 400-440 fields because each of these fields functions both as part of the bibliographic description and as a series added entry.  The indicator and subfield definitions for 8xx fields are the same as the corresponding 1xx fields, except for the addition of the $x (ISSN) and $v (numbering designation) subfields

In 1978 the second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules was published. Changes in the rules with the largest impact on series were the rules to formulate entries for personal, corporate, and meeting names, which made a separate distinction between the descriptive transcription and the form of entry.  So the new rules did not really provide for name/title series statements as part of the transcription.  Under these rules, the authorized form of the series (established in the authority file in Series Authority Record) did not always match the form found on the item.  So if the series were traced, it would need to be traced differently.

Library of Congress implemented AACR2 in January of 1981.  Eventually the MARC tags changed to accommodate the new cataloging rules.

The 440 and 490 fields were revised and used for the transcription of the series statement from the item.   Fields 400, 410, and 411 were no longer to be used for the transcription of the series from any type of material.

440 –   This field contains a series title statement when the series statement and the controlled added entry form of the series title are the same. Field 440 is both a series statement and a series added entry (title is traced). When a 440 field is present, a corresponding 830 field is not used since it would duplicate the 440 field.

490 –   This field contains a series statement for which no series added entry is to be made, or for which the series added entry is in a controlled form different from that which appears in the series statement. Field 490 does not serve as a series added entry. When field 490 is used and a series added entry is desired, both the series statement (field 490) and a corresponding series added entry (800-830 fields ) are separately recorded in the bibliographic record.

The 8XX fields were also revised to better accommodate the new rules.  The 800, 810, and 811 fields contain a name/title added entry used as a series added entry in which the entry of the series in under personal name, corporate name, or meeting name respectively, when the series statement is contained in field 490 (Series Statement) or field 500 (General Note) and a series added entry is required for the bibliographic record.  No 8XX series added entry field is used in conjunction with a series statement in the 400-440 fields because each field functions both as part of the bibliographic description and as a series added entry.  The indicator and subfield definitions for 8xx fields are the same as the corresponding 1xx fields, except for the addition of the $x (ISSN) and $v (numbering designation) subfields:

In 1988 fields 400, 410 and 411 were officially made obsolete in the CAN/MARC format.  They can still be used as local fields.  This left only the 440 and 490 as transcription fields.  Their definitions as well as the 8xx’s remained much the same.  Instructions are given to convert to 4xx/8xx as follows

MARC 21 conversion to current fields:

If indicator 2 is 0 in the 400, 410 or 411:

  • 4XX indicator 1 and all subfields except subfield $x convert to 8XX with same indicator 1 value and same subfields,
  • 4XX $t, $v, $x are also copied to 490 $a, $v, $x, respectively
  • 490 indicator 1 is set to 1.

If indicator 2 is 1 in the 400, 410 or 411:

  • 4XX indicator 1 and all subfields except subfields $a and $x convert to 8XX with same indicator 1 value and same subfields,
  • and all 1XX subfields are copied into the same 8XX, preceeding the subfields from the 4XX field,
  • and 4XX $t, $v, $x are also copied to 490 $a, $v, $x, respectively; 490 indicator 1 is set to 1.

On Sept. 1, 1989, Library of Congress implemented a policy to trace all series.  New series authority records showed the decision to trace.  When they needed to update a series, they would not go back and re-catalog the previous items.  The change in tracing decision would be recorded on the SAR using multiple 645 fields.

On June 1, 2006, the Library of Congress implemented its decision not to create/update series authority records and not to provide controlled series access points in its bibliographic records for resources in series.  This meant that in newly created bibliographic records for LC original cataloging (040 $a is solely “DLC”), the series statement will be given in a 490 0# field and LC will stop using 8xx fields.  This decision from LC was not well received by the cataloging community and even sparked a protest from LC catalogers

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) will not follow this policy.  Members will continue to provide controlled series access on records and create and maintain series authority records through their BIBCO, NACO, and CONSER programs.  More details can be found under the PCC programs NACO, BIBCO, and CONSER, and in the PCC Series Statement http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/seriesPCC.html.

LC will continue to support the PCC by deleting duplicate series records reported, answering questions if no research is needed, and coordinating and conducting series training.  In newly created CIP-partnered cataloging, in PCC member copy used for cataloging, and in non-PCC copy cataloging, existing series statements/access points will be accepted as is and “passed through.”  This will help prevent LC-issued records without series access points from overlaying records that have them in OCLC.

On June 6, 2008, MARBI (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information) the interdivisional committee of the American Library Association that deals with MARC standards, approved the proposal to make field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) obsolete in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.  This was done after much debate in the library community.  This decision leaves the 490 as the only field to record the transcription of the series statement from the item. The intention of the change is to resolve the long-standing problem of field 440 being both a descriptive field and a controlled access point.  The assumption is that separating the two functions will result in a more reliable description and easier maintenance through automated authority control over time.

This led to another change approved by MARBI:

In the 490 tag, the first indicator value ‘1’ has been redefined to:

1 – Series traced in 8XX field

When value “1” is used, the appropriate field 800-830 is included in the bibliographic record to provide the series added entry using the authorized form even if that form matches the transcribed form in the 490 field.  It was felt that since there are now few space limitations in online systems, the duplication of the data in 490 and 8xx should not be a problem.  An 8XX field can still be justified by a both a series statement in the 490 field or a general note in a 500 note field.

At this same time a second MARC proposal was made and approved.  This proposal made two changes:

Added $x subfield (ISSN) to 8XX fields.

Added $3 (Materials specified) added to field 490 and 8xx fields

The Library of Congress approved these proposals on October 2, 2008.  They will continue to accept the 440 field in records, and will not be retrospectively changing any records to conform to these changes.

The library community has been somewhat divided on whether to implement these changes, some have, and some have not, or are still deciding.  Libraries always have the option to formulate policies to fit their own circumstances.

This is where series description stands as of July 2009.

———————————

References:

Website “Its MARC” The Library Corporation:  http://itsmarc.com/crs/Bib1468.htm

MARC21 Format for Bibliographic Data 1999 ed.  Library of Congress Network Development and Marc Standards Office:   http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdhome.html

MARC21 Format for Authority Data 1999 ed.  Library of Congress Network Development and Marc Standards Office:   http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ecadhome.html

Article “Series at the Library of Congress: June 1, 2006” on the Library of Congress website: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/series.html

Tags: , ,
Posted in Authority Records, Bibliographic Records, MARC | Comments Closed

COSUGI Update

March 9th, 2010

Nate, our fearless leader recently braved the cold of Florida for the COSUGI Conference, this is what he had to say about his trip.

There’s a line from the Simpson’s where Flanders takes his family to Moe’s Family Feedbag.  When Moe curses while waiting on a table, Flanders says, “I expect that kind of language at Denny’s, but not here!”  That was the general feeling during the 3-day conference for COSUGI when it came to Florida’s weather—we expect that kind of cold weather where we were coming from, just not in Florida.

SirsiDynix has no control over the weather, so we can’t fault them for holding the conference during one of the coldest times since 2002.  Other than being able to see your breath in the morning or at night, the actual conference part of the stay was very nice.

By some estimates, there were around 600 attendees to COSUGI.  Many of those were no doubt employees of SirsiDynix, but there was a very healthy number of library staff coursing through the Coronado Springs Resort where the conference was held.

As for Backstage, we had a booth set up (#216) right next to data2—both of whom we work with.  The mornings tended to see the most traffic through the exhibit room, with it tapering off towards the afternoon.

On Wednesday, March 3, SirsiDynix hosted a dinner party at Disney Hollywood Studios, called “Streets of America.”  That portion of the park was leased, so a large group of us could dance & dine the night away listening to 80’s music blaring from a professional DJ and his decked out van.  Though the cold threatened to sully the mood, at least there was a smattering of heat lamps to help ease the chill.  Those of us (me) that didn’t think to also pack a sweater were very grateful for the extra warmth—or we could have joined in on the impromptu dancing!

COSUGI also conducted a lot of different meetings, discussion groups, and presentations.  In all, it was a very fruitful trip, even though I hear the tomato crops really took a beating while we were there.

Nate Cothran

Tags:
Posted in Conferences | Comments Closed

Bowker TOC Enrichment

February 22nd, 2010

Since we acquired the MARS Authority Control service from OCLC back in 2004, the Backstage crew has focused on bringing choice to our customers. Whether expanding search capabilities with updates like the heading tracker, simplifying our planning guide, or providing regular updates in an easily digestible format on our blog, our intent has been to give you, our clients, more options for getting things done.

Recently, we partnered with Bowker’s Syndetic Solutions to provide our customers with another choice when it comes to table of contents (TOC) enrichment. The Bowker service is designed to complement and serve as an alternative to our existing TOC service through Blackwell.

Our clients who use the Bowker service will see immediate benefits in:

1. Lower cost
2. Faster turnaround

For the new service, we host the entire Bowker database on our servers and integrate regular weekly updates. Because the database resides locally, we are able to repurpose some of our highly efficient MARS routines, fully automating the enrichment process and keeping costs on our end to a minimum. Then we pass those savings on to you.

In addition to Table of Contents field (505), we also provide Summaries (520) and Fiction Profiles (69X). And we only charge you for the enrichments your records actually receive, regardless of how many options you may have selected.

Housing the database locally allows us to track how many and what type of enrichments a record receives, so we can bill at a lower price for records that are only enriched on one or two elements.

Besides lowering the cost of enrichment, hosting the Bowker data at Backstage dramatically reduces the time your records spend out of your system for processing. Your records will be processed and returned to you with the same quick turnaround you’ve come to expect on your authority control.

With the database in-house, we can integrate the entire TOC enrichment workflow into your Current Cataloging process, or you can select groups of records for stand-alone enrichment.

Because each library’s ILS configuration is unique, we allow you to choose where you prefer to place the Bowker data. For example, you can place the 505 data from the Bowker record in a 970 field on your record.

You may prefer that existing data in your records be retained over potential Bowker matches in the same field. If you like, we can keep your content and not enrich on that particular element

The point is that you have more choices.

Since we acquired the MARS Authority Control service from OCLC back in 2004, the Backstage crew has focused on bringing choice to our customers. Whether expanding search capabilities with updates like the heading tracker, simplifying our planning guide, or providing regular updates in an easily digestible format on our blog, our intent has been to give you, our clients, more options for getting things done.

Recently, we partnered with Bowker’s Syndetic Solutions to provide our customers with another choice when it comes to table of contents (TOC) enrichment. The Bowker service is designed to complement and serve as an alternative to our existing TOC service through Blackwell.

Our clients who use the Bowker service will see immediate benefits in:

1. Lower cost
2. Faster turnaround

For the new service, we host the entire Bowker database on our servers and integrate regular weekly updates. Because the database resides locally, we are able to repurpose some of our highly efficient MARS routines, fully automating the enrichment process and keeping costs on our end to a minimum. Then we pass those savings on to you.

In addition to Table of Contents field (505), we also provide Summaries (520) and Fiction Profiles (69X). And we only charge you for the enrichments your records actually receive, regardless of how many options you may have selected.

Housing the database locally allows us to track how many and what type of enrichments a record receives, so we can bill at a lower price for records that are only enriched on one or two elements.

Besides lowering the cost of enrichment, hosting the Bowker data at Backstage dramatically reduces the time your records spend out of your system for processing. Your records will be processed and returned to you with the same quick turnaround you’ve come to expect on your authority control.

With the database in-house, we can integrate the entire TOC enrichment workflow into your Current Cataloging process, or you can select groups of records for stand-alone enrichment.

Because each library’s ILS configuration is unique, we allow you to choose where you prefer to place the Bowker data. For example, you can place the 505 data from the Bowker record in a 970 field on your record.

You may prefer that existing data in your records be retained over potential Bowker matches in the same field. If you like, we can keep your content and not enrich on that particular element

The point is that you have more choices.

Tags: , ,
Posted in TOC | Comments Closed

Impressions from the first RDA Toolkit Webinar

February 10th, 2010

I watched the RDA Toolkit webinar today, put on by the RDA group. I thought I’d share some of the impressions that I got out of it in the hopes that it would be somewhat useful. I should start off by noting that they did not intend this webinar to be very in-depth, but rather a kick-off of more information to come.

RDA will fully replace AACR2. This should go without saying, but I thought I’d better say it anyway. Even though the rules will be replaced, the RDA Toolkit will contain the full text of AACR2. The idea may be that if you know where a rule is specified in AACR2, you can look it up and it will cross link to the RDA rule. This should be a fairly handy feature for those of us who have worked with AACR2 for a long time.

Also mentioned was the ability for user generated content to be accessible in the RDA Toolkit. Whether this will be restricted to sharing information within your institution, or how it will be spread to other institutions is up in the air.  I’m not sure if this is something they’ve thought too much about yet.

A subscription can be for a single individual user or multi-user. If multiple users will be connecting, you will have a profile login in addition to your user login. This allows one institution to have a single or a few RDA licenses but have many more users, but there can only be as many users logged in at a time as there are licenses. For example, if you have 3 subscriptions you could have 10 (or more) users with their own profiles, but only 3 could connect at a given time.

The RDA Toolkit is a web-based collection of documents, and it’s been put together in a pretty slick manner. The current visuals don’t do justice to the functionality that the website offers, though I’m sure those visuals (graphics, fonts, and design) will be updated prior to launch. For example, the RDA tab (found on the upper left side of the screen) gives one access to an expanding tree-view of the RDA rules. Clicking a category will take you to the section in the chapter you’ve selected. You can place and share bookmarks and notes inside of the document. It’s very well done, as I said. My concern is that clicking on a subheading or a chapter opens the entire chapter; the example he showed would have been 95 pages if printed. The processing power needed to run all of the javascript code and the sheer amount of data being worked with leads me to believe that there could be some very slow pages, especially for users with older computers, slow internet connections, or heaven forbid are still running Internet Explorer 6.

Inside the documents you’ll find a plethora of links and cross references, nicely color coded and branded as to what sort of information they lead to. For example, links to other sections in the RDA rules book are coded in blue, while links to glossary terms have a triangle.  They also include links between the AACR2 rules and corresponding RDA rules.  This will be really useful when moving from AACR2 to RDA.

Searching RDA will allow you a nice number of options.  I particularly liked the fact that you could sort the results in terms of relevancy or order they appeared in the document.  You are also able to limit searches to specific chapters, sections, media types, content, examples, etc.

A fair amount of time was spent discussing how they wanted to work with vendors to allow them to link into the Toolkit within their products (to give specific helps and instructions).  However, the institution will still need a subscription or the links won’t work. Another topic people are worried about is a print version. They seem to believe that it isn’t necessary, or a good idea.  You can print each chapter on your own, however, like I mentioned earlier, chapter 3 alone was 95 pages which would be quite costly to print.  Plus you would lose all of the cross linking that you get with the electronic edition.

They mentioned an open access period from launch (expected June, 2010) to August 31st, 2010.  After the open access period, you will be able to get a 30-day free trial to test the RDA Toolkit before purchasing a license. One nice feature:  if you set up bookmarks and links during your trial you won’t lose them when you purchase a license.

For more information and to be added to an email list, email rdatoolkit@ala.org or visit http://www.rdaonline.org

Tags:
Posted in RDA | 1 Comment »

RDA Toolkit – Guided Tour Webinar

February 4th, 2010

On February 8, 2010 and February 9, 2010, Troy Linker from ALA Publishing is presenting a guided tour of the RDA Toolkit website:

https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/639494355

Registration is quick and easy (and free apparently) and will cover these topics (from the above link):

  • Description of the RDA Toolkit
  • Overview of the RDA Toolkit contents at launch and beyond
  • Tour of the RDA Toolkit interface including Search, Browse, Bookmarks, Workflows, Maps, and more
  • Launch timeline
  • Details of the Complimentary Open Access period
  • RDA Toolkit pricing for the US
  • Linking from external products to the RDA Toolkit

February 8 – 1 hour : 21:00 – 22:00 GMT (4:00 pm EST)

February 9 – 1 hour : 16:00 – 17:00 GMT (11:00 am EST)

https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/991492442

Tags:
Posted in RDA | Comments Closed

RDA Updates from ALA

February 1st, 2010

RDA – Jan. 15, 2010 – http://connect.ala.org/node/92572

Disclaimer: One of our Backstage staff (Maritta Coppieters) attended the all-day training session at ALA, but then also had to jump on a plane to England, so these updates are based on conversations I had with Maritta before she left:

  • LC is making allowance to put the authority control number in the heading in a $0, so that the heading will link to a specific authority record. LC isn’t going to implement this right now and will still be linking with the actual authority record, but it is something they are planning.
  • Lots of rules are going away and becoming more intuitive.
  • Old Latin abbreviations are being discarded.
  • The rule of thumb is: Key it like you see it.
  • The focus isn’t so much on editing and conforming things to a set of rules, more like representing the material as you find it. The idea is that if you download content from a publisher and the book title has an abbrevaition, you leave it the way it is.
  • Trust the item in hand rather than applying a set of rules to it.
  • LC will publish RDA by June ALA. Then we have 3 months to train and practice. Then another 3 months to test specific scenarios and report back to LC. Then LC will take 3 months to write up the results (Q1 2011).

The RDA Toolkit price has been set at: $325 for the first user, $55 for each additional user. This price is set to be an annual subscription, rather than a one-time fee. As a comparison, the AACR2 life-time price is around $95 per user (non-members).

More information regarding the RDA Toolkit can be found here:
http://celeripedean.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/the-rda-toolkit/

Stay tuned as we prepare a more comprehensive update about the direction RDA is heading and how we are a part of it.

Tags: ,
Posted in Conferences, RDA | Comments Closed

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »