Print

Print


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