The proposed revision to LCRI 24.7B prompts to me to raise an issue
related to that revision.
The revision calls for two different practices for NARs for newly
established ongoing conferences. For serial records the current
practice of a single authority record would continue. For monograph
records a new policy--a separate NAR for each conference
heading--would apply. Further, the "Note" seems to imply that either
one policy or the other should apply to each ongoing conference.
This raises the issue of monograph treatment versus serial treatment
of the same publications of an ongoing conference in PCC. In short,
there is not supposed to be conflicting treatment--either it's a serial
or it's a monograph. The CONSER Editing Guide states:
"If LC monographic cataloging duplicates authenticated
serial cataloging, report the duplication to LC for
resolution. If it is decided that duplication does exist,
LC will handle the deletion of the duplicate record via
the MARC Distribution Service (MDS). ... If a CONSER
cataloger discovers one or more LC monographic records for
a title they have determined to be a serial, a serial
record is authenticated in OCLC and the monographic
records are reported to LC."
It is my observation that with the growth of BIBCO/PCC, as well as the
introduction of lccopycat, that more and more serial-mono. duplicates
are entering the database. Examples found quite easily today:
Additionally, keep in mind that a NACO library need not be a member of
either CONSER or BIBCO in order to contribute NARs for conference
This leads me (finally ;-) ) to two questions:
1) Is an authority record policy providing one course of action
for LC/NACO and another course of action for LC/CONSER, without
the two policies coming into conflict for ongoing conference
names, a workable approach?
2) Now that LC has its ILS and the CONSER database is no longer
an integral part of LC's OPAC, should the current LC/PCC policy
on mono. versus serial treatment of the same title be re-examined
by LC and PCC?
One last thought regarding a statement in the original CPSO posting to
"This [change to LCRI 24.7B] would bring LC/NACO practice
into agreement with that of other national bibliographic
Is it possible that the proposed approach is workable for the other
national bib. agencies simply because those agencies do not operate in
the highly cooperative environment that exists with LC/NACO? It is
certainly much simpler to avoid conflict when only one library is in
control of what gets into the database.
I will submit other, more specific, comments on the proposal directly
to CPSO. But I thought this aspect might be worth bringing up on
PCCLIST prior to the CONSER and BIBCO Operations Committee meetings
David Van Hoy, Principal
[log in to unmask]