LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBCO Archives


BIBCO Archives

BIBCO Archives


BIBCO@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBCO Home

BIBCO Home

BIBCO  April 1999

BIBCO April 1999

Subject:

Draft Series FAQ for comment

From:

Ana Cristan <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:28:32 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (356 lines)

In preparation for the discussion on series at the upcoming BIBCO
Operations Committee I would like to invite comments from all BIBCO
participants on this DRAFT Series FAQ.

        In reading through the FAQ I remind you that the purpose of a national
tracing practice was to give libraries the choice to analyze and provide
a series added entry when LC had made a local decision not to analyze
the same series.

        Some of the notable questions in the FAQ are those raised in regard to
LC's previous decision to "not trace" especially in instances where the
series were very generic (e.g., Tor books) and libraries followed LC's
decision.  Questions about how "exactly" to proceed in those cases where
LC's decision was to "not analyze".  How to proceed in cases where
issues of periodicals are being analyzed but where LC has a serial
record and no SAR, and to clarify what the decision to add "DPCC in the
642 means for libraries.

        Please send comments to this list so that the Operations Committee can
discuss if this FAQ at the meeting to be held next week (April 22-23) If
you have additional questions which could be added to this FAQ please
send those along too.  If you prefer you may send comments to me
directly, however, I would like to be able to share these comments with
the OpCo so that all participants views and concerns may be taken into
account.

***********************************************************************************
                          DRAFT FAQ DOCUMENT --

Most Frequently Asked Questions about series and creating series
authority records (SARs)

1. What exactly does the decision in the DCM Z1, issued Oct. 26, 1998,
mean when it states that "the default national-level tracing decision
will be to trace"?
        This means that PCC participants who create records for items in series
when there is not an existing SAR, will  routinely create a SAR with the
default tracing decision of "t" (Traced) in field 645 subfield $a
followed by a subfield  $5 with the code DPCC to show that this is the
default national-level tracing practice.  This action separates the PCC
national practice from LC's local practice (see also question no. 15).
The explicit instructions for this procedure are noted in DCM Z1 "yellow
pages" section on fields 645 and 642.

2.  What exactly does the code DPCC mean?

        DCC is the MARC 21 (formerly USMARC) identification code for the
Program for Cooperative Cataloging.  The text of the announcement and
some background on the development of this code is  available on the
CPSO homepage at http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/dpcc.html

3.  Does this mean I can't include my own institution's code to show our
treatment decision?

        No, it does not, however, at this time only 1 additional code beyond
DLC and DPCC is allowed. An SAR could have two 645 fields with the
following elements:
                645 $a n $5 DLC
                645 $a t  $5 DPCC $5 IaRedo

4.  The announcement also states that participants should also add a 642
to show the form of numbering for a series when it is numbered.  Are we
recording the fact that the series is numbered and/or that the form of
numbering in the 642 is the "national level" form.

        In recording the 642 and coding it DPCC the cataloger is stating both
fact and form.  The fact that the series is numbered and the form in
which that numbering should be recorded in the series access point in
the bibliographic record.

5.  Does this mean that a series must be traced explicitly (8xx) when
the number on the item-in-hand varies from the form in the 642 on the
SAR?  Even if the numbering is the only difference?

        Yes, this is necessary in order to have an orderly display sort.  This
is especially needed when dealing with large series and to compensate
for publishers varying the form of numbering from one volume to another
(volume or v.; number or no., etc.).  Without following the form in the
642 a series sort for the same series may looks like this:
                30
                 n. 2
                 no. 15
                 v. 9
                 vol. 23

6.  What about fields 644 and 646, should these fields be left out?

        Participants may also choose to record their local practice in fields
644 and 646; as it currently stands participants  may also choose to
leave these data elements out of their SAR.  The resulting SAR could
look like one of the two examples below.

                Example 1:   SAR without 644 and 646 fields:
                010 $a system supplied LCCN
                040 $a CLU  $c  CLU
                1xx $a new series title
                642 $a [form of number in access point if needed]
$5                          DPCC
                643 $a place : $b publisher
                645 $a t $5 DPCC
                670 $a source citation, etc.

                Example 2:  SAR with local 644 and 646 supplied:
                010 $a system supplied LCCN
                040 $a CLU$c CLU
                1xx $a new series title
                642 $a [form of number in access point if needed] $5
DPCC
                643 $a place : $b publisher
                644 $a $a f $5 CLU
                645 $a t $5 DPCC
                646 $a s $5 CLU
                670 $a source citation, etc.


7.  For libraries participating in BIBCO what does this mean exactly?

        For BIBCO participants who create BIBCO records for items in series for
which there is NOT already  an existing SAR, usually the BIBCO
participant will create a SAR with the default tracing decision in the
645 and will provide the subfield $5 DPCC as stated in response to no.
1. However, if a BIBCO participant does NOT wish to trace a series,
there are several options:

                A. Do not label the record PCC ; code the series 4900; and do not
create an SAR for the NAF.

                B. Create a PCC core record (OCLC: 042=pcc and  039 = core; RLG:
encoding level=4); code the  series 4900; and do not create an SAR.

                C. Create a PCC full level record (OCLC: 042=pcc and 039 =core; RLG:
encoding level=4); code the series 440 or 4901 (as the case may be);
create an SAR and provide the national-level default treatment and a
second 645 $a n with $5 code of the BIBCO institution.
                        Example:        645 $a t $5 DPCC
                                        645 $a n $5 CLU

                Contribute the bibliographic record to the utility in which the
cataloging is being done work and then download the bibliographic record
to the local database and change the 440 or 4901/8xx to 4900.

8.  What do PCC participants, who do not participate in BIBCO do when
they do NOT want  to trace a series?

        PCC participants creating records for items in a series which they do
not wish to trace in their catalog and there is no existing SAR have 3
options:

                A) Do not create an SAR

                B)  Create an SAR with a 645 showing only the DPCC
default treatment

                C) Create an SAR with two 645s, one showing the
national                    level decision and one  showing the local
decision:

                        Example:        645$a t  $5 DPCC
                                        645$a n $5 IaRedo


9.  What if there is an existing SAR with the LC decision to  "not
trace" (645=n) should we add $5 DPCC to reflect the "national-level
tracing" practice to these records?

        Yes, please do.  LC is currently investigating how to add this field
programmatically.  In the meantime, if a  PCC participant needs to
create a record for an item in one of these series (whether or not it
is  a BIBCO program record) we encourage all catalogers to update the
SAR by adding a new 645 with subfield $a coded "t" and a subfield $5
coded  "DPCC" to the SAR (cf. DCM Z1 "yellow pages" 645,  p. 2  for more
information).

NOTE:  please consider this option: Would it be best to add the DPCC
code to existing SARs having a DLC decision of "untraced" (645$a= n)
only when the DLC 644 decision is "not analyzed."  This would avoid
split files in other libraries, if the existing SAR has 644 "f" and 645
"n" we wouldn't add 645 $a t $5 DPCC.


10.  What if a BIBCO participant followed LC 's decision to "not  trace"
do we now need to change our practice to the new  national-level
default?

        It was our understanding that libraries wanted the ability to differ
from LC's decision when LC had made the decision to not trace a series,
not the inverse and not to continue following the "not trace" decision.
However, if PCC libraries who paticipate in BIBCO followed LC's decision
to "not trace" and wish to continue to do so they must  follow these
options:

                A) Do not label the record PCC ; continue to follow the "untraced"
practice.

                B) Create a PCC core record (OCLC: 042=pcc and 039 = core; RLG:
encoding level=4); code the  series 4900; optionally add 645 $a t $5
DPCC to the SAR.

                C) Create a PCC core record (OCLC: 042=pcc and 039 = core; RLG:
encoding level=4); tag the series 490; update the SAR to add the local
decision and add a new 645 showing the  the national level decision:

                        Example:        645$a n  $5 DLC $5 CLU
                                        645$a t $5 DPCC

                 D) Create a PCC full level bibliographic record (OCLC and RLG:
042=pcc; ENC LVL=blank); tag the series 440 or 4901 (as the case may
be); update the SAR and provide the national-level default treatment;
contribute it to the utility in which the cataloging is being done work
and then download the bibliographic record to the local database and
change the 440 or 4901/8xx to 4900.

11.  What about PCC libraries who do not paticipate in BIBCO and wish to
follow LC's decision to "not trace"?

           PCC libraries who are not BIBCO participants have the
following options:

        A) Continue to follow the "untraced" practice.

        B) Continue to follow the "untraced" practice; update the SAR and add a
$5 with the local code to the existing 645 (e.g., 645 $a n $5 DLC $5
IaRedo)

        C) Continue to follow the "untraced" practice; update the SAR to add
the local decision and add a new 645 showing the  the national level
decision:

                Example:        645$a n  $5 DLC $5 IaRedo
                                645$a t $5 DPCC

12.  What if another library had already added its code to the 645 $5 to
show they did not trace the series, since only one other library's code
is allowed what are the options in this case?

        A)  Do not add the local code; continue to follow DLC's decision, do
not add code to SAR.

        B)  If a PCC library is also a BIBCO library

                 i. Do not create a program bibliographic record, do
not                   add code to SAR.

                ii. Create a core bibliographic record (OCLC:
042=pcc                     and 039 = core; RLG: encoding level=4), do
not add                      local code to SAR.

                iii. Create a PCC full level record (OCLC and RLG: 042=pcc); tag the
series 440 or 4901 (as the case may be);  contribute it to the utility
in which the cataloging is being done work and then download the
bibliographic record to the local database and change the 440 or
4901/8xx to 4900.  Do nothing to the SAR.


13.  Will LC change its original decision to "not trace"?

        LC will not be re-visiting its decisions to "not trace" on series
created before 1985.

14.  What does a BIBCO library do if it finds an SAR for a  monographic
series or multipart item that LC has decided not to analyze (644-646
=nnc) and the BIBCO library wants to submit a BIBCO full record for an
analytic in the series?

        This is the classic example which prompted the  decision for the
default national level practice.  In this case the BIBCO library would
upgrade the  SAR and:

                1) add the second 645 with subfield $a set to  "t"
(trace) followed by subfield $5 DPCC
                2) add a 642 field with form of number  in subfield
$a                    and subfield $5 DPCC.

This is  all that is required; optionally the  participant  may also
supply a second 644 and 646 field with  its local treatment identified
with subfield $5.

                Example 1:
                010 $a system supplied LCCN
                040 $a DLC$c DLC $d CLU
                1xx $a new series title
                642 $a [form of number in access point if  needed]
$DLC                      $5 DPCC
                643 $a place : $b  publisher
                644 $a n $5 DLC
                645 $a t $5 DPCC
                645 $a n $5 DLC
                646 $a c $5 DLC
                670 $a source citation, etc.

                Example 2:
                010 $a system supplied LCCN
                040 $a DLC$c DLC $d CLU
                1xx $a new series title
                642 $a [form of number in access point if needed]
$DLC                     $5 DPCC
                643 $a place : $b publisher
                644 $a n $5 DLC
                644 $a f $5 CLU
                645 $a n $5 DLC
                645 $a t $5 DPCC
                646 $a c $5 DLC
                646 $a s $5 CLU
                670 $a source citation, etc.

15.   Example no. 2 in question no. 14 shows a mixture of codes which
some cataloging staff may find confusing, can't we make it more uniform?

        As noted before LC does not have a local catalog to record its
decisions to not analyze series, in order to make the result more
uniform the PCC  would need to decide to make the "national-level
default" treatment to always analyze (field 644 = f) and to always
classify series separately (646$a =s). At this time there is not enough
support to warrant that decision.


16.   If a participant library creates an analytic for an individual
issue of a periodical and creates an SAR should the library show DLC's
treatment in the 645 as "n"?

        No, if/when LC catalogs the periodical an LC cataloger will add a 645
with "n" to show  LC's treatment.

17.  What if LC has cataloged the periodical, should we still not add
LC's tracing decision?

        In cases where the cataloger knows that LC has cataloged the periodical
for its collection, the cataloger may notify their Coop liaison.  The
Coop liaison will add LC's decision or forward the notice to the Serial
Record Division.

18. So this means that LC will not always follow the national level
decision to trace everything?

        Because the NAF is also LC's local catalog there  will be at least
three (3) instances when SARs in  the NAF will reflect LC's tracing
decision as "not traced" (645$a = n)

                1)    SARs for serial publications for which a single issue is being
cataloged. LC's   policy  is to not catalog single issues of a serial;
however a PCC participant may   do so and  contribute the SAR to the NAF
and add the DPCC  default tracing practice in 645.  The participant
should not predict or add LC's tracing decision.(see also response to
questions 13-14).

                2)  SARs for monographic series or multipart item when LC has decided
not to analyze individual items (see also response to question no 11).

                3)  SARs created prior to 1985 when LC had made a decision not to
trace.



Ana Cristan
Acting BIBCO Coordinator

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
September 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
March 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager