Dear BIBCO Participants:
     To further stimulate your thinking on the DRAFT Series FAQ I'm
forwarding to you a message from Carol Hixson at ULCA.  Prior to ALA
Midwinter, Carol had asked another question on series procedures and
this had stimulated a discussion with Judy Kuhagen, CPSO, on the need
for a Series FAQ.  Carol recently attended the Series Workshop and
looked at an early draft of the FAQ and then raised the question about
the need for a default analysis practice (644) for the PCC as raised in
her comments below.

From:   Carol Hixson <[log in to unmask]>
To:     Ana Cristan <[log in to unmask]>
Date:   Tue, Mar 23, 1999  5:14 PM
Subject: Draft Series FAQ background note


I have discussed this issue at length with my Head of Serials
Cataloging, Valerie Bross, and my Head of Monographic Cataloging, Jain
Fletcher, and this is what we think and how we'd like our views to be

We don't question the need for a default analysis practice. We do,
however, think the DPCC mechanism devised is incomplete. As we
understand the current DPCC guidelines, a library contributing an SAR
is only required to add in a 645 with the default decision "t" for
trace followed by the DPCC code and a 642 with the numbering and
the DPCC code, if it's a numbered series.
    In every library where we've worked, records having only a 645 would
be problematic to use in local authority files (not to mention
incomprehensible to a lot of staff). If the default decision is to
trace, then the default decision for the 644 must be to analyze. We
believe that the 644 should also be required for NACO libraries and that
the default decision should be "f". That is the only decision that makes
sense if the default decision is to trace. For those situations where
the series might be partially analyzable, Judy Kuhagen suggested that we
could use the $d with the wording to note that the decision referred to
analyzable issues.
    We would ideally like to see the default national decision be "fts",
with the default 646 being "s", but we don't feel as strongly about that
one. For those SARs that UCLA encounters that are incomplete, having
only a 645, we intend to go in and add in the 644 $5 CLU and the 646 $5
CLU to make these fully-functional records. We would prefer to encounter
fully-functional records to begin with.

    Regarding the one question on the FAQ referring to
previously-established SARs which were "fns" and how BIBCO libraries
should treat them: we do not believe that BIBCO or NACO libraries
(including LC) should be going back and revisiting those decisions, nor
do we think that they should be limited to only contributing those
records as CORE. The way we have always understood the BIBCO guidelines
is that a FULL BIBCO record requires that ALL access points be
supported by an authority record. A series authority that has "fns"
supports a 490 0 on a bibliographic record. Therefore, that record
could be contributed as a FULL BIBCO record.

The question also arises as to how a BIBCO library is to treat a series
that has previosuly been established as "ftc". The way that UCLA has
interpreted this (after discussion with LC staff) is that any BIBCO
records we submit with a series classified as a collection must have
the classed-together number from the SAR in the 050 4 of the bib
record. If our local practice is "fts", we then also add in a second $a
in the 050 with the separate classification number - just the way that
LC has always handled these in the past. We are quite comfortable with

We believe that SARs that were established by LC or others before
October 1998 (or whatever cut-off date you want to use) should be left
alone as far as the 644, 645, 646 go and I think that BIBCO libraries
should follow those decisions in their BIBCO records. At the time
that those records were established, they WERE understood to be
national practice. We all looked to LC as the defacto national library.
Just because the environment is now changing and LC is being looked on
more as an equal partner, doesn't mean that we should attempt to revise

     When UCLA signed on to the BIBCO program, we recognized that it
would mean that sometimes we would need to do things on the national
record that were not exactly what we wanted to do in our local record.
To us, that's the essence of cooperation - doing things for the common
good. When we find that our local practice deviates too greatly from
national practice and that it would take us too much time to follow
national practice fully, we do not submit that particular record as a
BIBCO. That is an option that all libraries have.
      For those libraries that have decided that all of their work will
be done as BIBCO, that is a local decision. However, such a local
decision should not, then, be used as a rationale for changing
previously-established SARs. I don't believe we can have it both ways:
if we believe in cooperation, then we must make compromises. I don't
think it's realistic to say we're a BIBCO library and then say that its
rules and regulations hamper us too much locally. Being a BIBCO library
is not about status; it's about cooperation and reasonable compromise.

Carol Hixson
Head, Cataloging Dept.
Young Research Library
(310) 825-2901
[log in to unmask]