So LC is unilaterally changing CONSER policy? Or is LC just making note of
its own local (contra CONSER) policy, and noting that in the CONSER
documentation? Either way, why shouldn't any CONSER member library have
the same privileges? I fail to see the "cooperative" part of Program for
Cooperative Cataloging in this situation.
At 11:44 AM 6/1/2006, Judith A Kuhagen wrote:
> As I noted in earlier reply, the CONSER documentation will be
> reviewed and updated this summer. Les and Hien will be discussing with
> CONSER participants.
> >>> "Kevin M. Randall" <[log in to unmask]> 06/01/06 11:29 AM >>>
>Judy: Thank you for your explanations. However, they do not seem to
>correspond with the policies as described in the CONSER Editing Guide, as I
>In CEG B6.2, "Description of record levels", the 8XX Series added entries
>are described as "MA" under Full, Core, and Minimal levels. "MA" means
>"mandatory if applicable".
>In C2.4, "Summary guidelines", under C2.4.1, "Full or core level cataloging
>is being performed", it includes:
>a. Records will contain all necessary fields required for a full level
>record as stated in the CEG
>b. Records will contain all necessary name/series headings
>c. Name/series headings are or will be established in the Name Authority
>File (042 = lcd), or not established but in AACR2 form (042 = msc); or no
>headings required (042 = lcd)
>Similarly, under C2.4.2, "Minimal level cataloging is being performed", it
>a. Records will contain all necessary fields required for a minimal level
>record as stated in the CEG.
>b. Record may or may not contain name/series headings.
>c. Name/series headings used may be established in Name Authority File (042
>= lcd) or not established but in AACR2 form (042 = msc); or no headings
>(042 = lcd).
>In Section E, "MARC 21 Format for Serials as Applied Within CONSER", under
>"042 Authentication Code", the definition for codes commonly found in
>CONSER records are:
>lc: Code "lc" signifies that descriptive elements and headings are verified
>by the Library of Congress. LC authenticates records for items held that
>are not within the purview of the Library and Archives Canada.
>Additionally, the Library of Congress adds LC-specific elements to records
>for Canadian imprints that are part of its collection. Beginning in Oct.
>2004, LC uses code "lc" to authenticate original records only.
>lcd: Code "lcd" signifies that descriptive elements are verified by NSDP or
>other CONSER members and that all name and series headings appear in the
>NAMES file. Older records may also have been verified by NST and the CONSER
>Minimal Level Cataloging Section at LC. Code "lcd" is also used when all
>descriptive elements have been verified and there are no headings
>appropriate to the record. (See also no. 4 and no. 5 under Updating
>authenticated records below.)
>msc: Code "msc" signifies that descriptive elements are verified by LC or a
>CONSER member, including U.S. Newspaper Program participants. All headings
>have been checked against the name authority file, but an authority record
>was not found for one or more headings. Code "msc" is used by NSDP in all
>prepub records because headings are not checked in these records.
>All of the above taken together seem to make it clear (to me, at least)
>that it is CONSER policy generally to trace series, and it is *not* an
>option in an authenticated CONSER record to not trace a series that is
>already established with a policy of "trace". Even in a minimal level
>record, if a series is already established it must be traced in the form
>given in the SAR.
>The idea that a CONSER member could contribute a full level record with the
>series statement in 490 0 simply because they aren't contributing an SAR is
>a huge surprise to me. (If that was just some historical practice, it is
>not mentioned in CEG.)
>LC's general policy of non-tracing series, *especially* in a cooperative
>program, is very much counter to the spirit of the program. In CEG B1.5,
>"Level of records", it states:
>CONSER records are created at the full, core, or minimal level as specified
>in B6. CONSER records may be created at any level but most CONSER records
>should be created at at least the core level. The creation of full level
>records is encouraged, as resources permit. Minimal level records are
>generally limited to specific groups of serials that don't warrant higher
>And in CEG B1.8, "International resource record", it states:
>Bibliographic information given in a CONSER record is a composite of all
>known information about a serial. This information does not necessarily
>reflect the holdings of any one institution. In addition, CONSER records
>are created so that they may be used universally. Policies and practices
>specific to one institution are not applied to CONSER records, nor is
>information given that is purely local in nature.
>At 08:08 AM 6/1/2006, Judith A Kuhagen wrote:
> >[Because Kevin sent message to both PCC and CONSER lists, I'm replying to
> >both as well. - Judy]
> > Remember that 490 0# is not a heading; the "lc" authentication
> > code for serials applies to headings. There have always been some series
> > untraced by LC and others (began before 1989 when all new series became
> > traced) in which serial analytics were published; those CONSER records by
> > LC and others have always been coded "lc" if the name headings in records
> > were supported by authority records.
> > Also, not all CONSER members originally contributed SARs. If
> > they didn't, they coded their serial analytic records as "lc" either
> > because they gave the series statements as 490 0# fields or because they
> > requested LC to make the SARs for them.
> > Les and Hien will be updating the CONSER documentation to remove
> > LC practice statements for series, etc., over the next months.
> > Judy
> > >>> [log in to unmask] 05/31/06 6:55 PM >>>
> >It is minimally reassuring that LC will not be inputting the "pcc" code in
> >field 042 of monograph records for items in series.
> >However, according to the FAQ and the instructions for LC staff that I have
> >seen, the code "lc" will still be used in field 042 of serial records, even
> >when series are not being traced. Also, 490 0 will be used if a
> >change/addition of series occurs on a CONSER record that is being modified
> >by LC.
> >Despite the assurance by Mark Watson in his 5/25/06 message that "PCC
> >series policy remains unchanged," LC is unilaterally deciding not to follow
> >fully the standards that are established for CONSER records. And while
> >"PCC Policy Committee (PoCo) formally recognizes and supports the right of
> >the Library of Congress (LC) to make cataloging decisions in its own best
> >interest," and "PoCo is treating LC the same as it would any other member
> >library," it is not at all clear that LC has the right to impose those
> >decisions on a cooperative database. If any other CONSER member library
> >were to institute such a policy, and submit/modify records that fail to
> >meet the mutually agreed upon standards of the program, I seriously doubt
> >that it would be looked upon so favorably by PoCo.
> >The procedures that LC has put in place for their new series policy will
> >immediately call into question any CONSER record involving a series that
> >has "DLC" in the 040 field and a create or modify date after 6/1/06. Most
> >of us probably have our own "blacklists" of OCLC member libraries whose
> >copy needs very careful review before being used. But it is very sad
> >indeed to now find it necessary to add some CONSER records into that
> >Kevin M. Randall
> >Head of Serials Cataloging
> >Northwestern University Library
> >1970 Campus Drive
> >Evanston, IL 60208-2300
> >email: [log in to unmask]
> >phone: (847) 491-2939
> >fax: (847) 491-4345