Web viewThe instructions are to: “Capitalize the first word or the abbreviation of the first word in a title and in a title of a part, section, or supplement (see 2.3.1.7)

Series Document 1

Program for Cooperative CatalogingStanding Committee on Training

Series Policy Task Force

Interim Report January 17, 2014

The PCC/SCT Series Policy Task Force, consisting of Ed Jones, Robert Maxwell, George Prager, and Paul Priebe, was tasked in late 2012 with reviewing existing series policies and responding to series policy questions in the light of RDA implementation. The group is associated with, but is not a subgroup of, the PCC/SCT Series Training Task Force and the PCC/SCT Series Review Group.

The Series Policy Task Force sees its work as comprising three activities: (1) to make recommendations on new policy issues that arose when RDA was implemented, (2) to make recommendations as to the disposition of the LC-PCC Policy Statements that currently exist and language in DCM-Z1 about series, and (3) to make recommendations for additions and changes to series-related PCC documentation, including the LC-PCC Policy Statements and DCM Z1. The existing LC-PCC Policy Statements were simply transferred directly from the LCRIs and have not been examined with RDA in mind. As such they are the only remaining part of the LC-PCC PSs that need examination and revision.

The Task Force spent most of 2013 discussing and giving recommendations for policy questions that arose as the Series Training Task Force created its training materials, and as the Review Group fielded questions from catalogers attempting to apply RDA to series authority records. It has not yet begun systematically reviewing the LC-PCC PSs, but has decided it needs to send this interim report so that the PCC policy and training committees can think about some of the policy recommendations. The Task Force recommends that decisions be made on these proposed policy statements, but that they not be published until the existing LC-PCC PSs and series information in DCM-Z1 has been examined in order not to introduce inconsistency in the documentation.

These policy recommendations were circulated to the Series Training Task Force in July 2013 and the Policy TF received feedback. There was not agreement in the Training TF or acceptance of all the recommendations, and we have tried to reflect these cases below. The recommendations are those of the Policy Task Force.

The Policy Task Force intends next to begin review of the existing LC-PCC Policy Statements and DCM-Z1 sections relevant to series (see Appendix II).

Organization of this document:

I. FRBR issues

II. Transcription Issues

III. Access Point Issues

IV. Miscellaneous Issues

Appendix I. Proposed Policy Statements

1

Appendix II. Other Series-Related Policy Statement That Still Need Review

LEGEND:

Commenter 1

NLM (National Library of Medicine)

Commenter 2

UW (University of Washington)

Commenter 3

2

I. FRBR issues

I.1. Mixing of FRBR Entities Within Series Authority Records

Discussion

Some commentators have argued that series authority records represent a melding of attributes of several FRBR Group 1 entities—works, expressions, manifestations, and even items (in the form of local treatment elements)—and indeed that such melding was unavoidable. We believe that this occurs no more on series authority records than on any other kind of authority record. For example, records for non-series works and expressions routinely contain variant access points for forms that occur only in a subset of manifestations (often only one). To this extent, while a certain “mixing” is probably inevitable, the general goal of authority records that correspond to discrete FRBR Group 1 entities is not only achievable but desirable. The following discussion addresses this question in terms of the affected elements in the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data.

These are the fields that occur in series authority records and are not found in other kinds of authority records:

643. Series place and publisher/issuing body. It has been argued, as evidence that we mix FRBR entities on series authority records, that this is manifestation information. This field is similar to the 670, which also contains manifestation-level information. 670 occurs on all authority records for every kind of entity, including persons, corporate bodies, families, works, expressions. No one argues that the presence of 670 fields on, for example, a record for a person, means that we are mixing FRBR entities in person records.

COMMENTER 1 :”Mixing FRBR entities” is only an issue with Group 1 (WEMI), so naturally no one would make such an argument.

In the 643 field we record information that is helpful to identify the series, namely, the place and publisher of the resource we have in hand when establishing the series, but it has always been understood that this may change, i.e. the information may not apply to the entire series as a work.

642. Series numbering example. Recording the information in this field is governed by RDA 24.6, an instruction for recording a relationship between a work as a whole and a part. The information in 642 is work-related. Although RDA 24.6 is worded in terms of works, it is contained in Chapter 24, which provides general guidelines for works, expressions, manifestations and items. It seems appropriate that the instructions about numbering of parts could apply to expressions as well. The presence of 642 in series authority records is not evidence that we mix FRBR elements in these records, since the

3

information is about a relationship and is appropriate either at the work or expression level.

641. Series numbering peculiarities. Like 642, this information is work-related.. It gives further details about recording the relationship between a work and a part, or problems with the whole-part relationship for a given series.

640. Series dates of publication, etc. The sort of information recorded in this rarely-used field gives information that helps identify the series as a whole—it was only published in 15 bibliographic volumes, so this work won’t have any more than that; it was created between 1864 and 1910; etc. This is work-related information.

022. It is permitted to record an ISSN in a series authority record, although this is being done somewhat inconsistently at the present time. The RDA instructions for recording ISSN are in Chapter 2 (2.12.8), but these instructions are for transcribing manifestation information in 490—2.12.8 is not about recording information in an 022 in a bibliographic or authority record. It is true that we are able to record the number in an 022 in an authority record and it has been our custom to do so, but we are not convinced that that practice is governed by 2.12.8. We think it’s a useful piece of information that helps identify the series (work). It’s also true that ISSN is given as an example under 2.15, “identifier for the manifestation” so in that sense it is a manifestation-level piece of information we’re recording, but again, it’s something that helps to identify the work—if we have two separate series with the same name, the fact that they have different ISSNs is a clue that they’re different works.

MJC:The fact that information about a manifestation can help identify a work does not change its nature—it’s still manifestation-level information.

642, 644, 645. The local treatment fields, 642, 644, and 645, are non-RDA, and do not have anything to do with WEMI—they are about local record-keeping.

SCS: Should 642 be 646 instead? The latter seems more like “local treatment” but 642 does not.

UW: do you mean fields 644, 645, 646 instead of 642, 644, 645?

050. 050 is also currently non-RDA, though information about classification may eventually appear the subject chapters. Classification information such as that found in 050 records a relationship of the work to a topic, and so is appropriate in a work-level record, but 050, like the local treatment fields, is really mainly about local record-keeping—where are we going to shelve resources that appear in this series?

COMMENTER 1 :While the argument above is interesting, it misses the point. When we map many MARC series authority fields to RDA, we find the associated instructions are in Chapter 2. This is the case with 022 (ISSN), 641-642 (Series numbering), and 643 (Publication

4

information). Other fields, i.e. 644-646 (Local treatment) and 050 (Classification no.) don’t map to RDA at all. By contrast, when we map fields that exist both in series and name authority fields to RDA, we find the associated instructions in Chapter 5. This is the case with 4XX (Variant access point) and 670 (Sources consulted).

It is also true that SARs have until now functioned at the manifestation level. There can be, and sometimes are, equivalent bibliographic records, which represent manifestations.

These observations suggest there is something different about SARs in the RDA environment that we need to explore/understand better. What is best for our patrons, and what is a wise use of scarce resources? Recent discussions on the PCC lists have shown that application of RDA in our current MARC and systems environment could radically change how series authorized access points are formulated and how many authority records are created. Even if we do not touch legacy data, this would require extensive revision of existing access points and authority records for resources currently being received or cataloged, and it would create a conceptual disjuncture between current and older metadata. If we can assume that the current environment (where WEMI concepts are visited upon MARC bibliographic and authority records, and where systems are built for MARC data) is a transitional one, we should proceed with caution before making sweeping changes to address an issue that is only temporary.

Recommendation

Add the following language to DCM Z1 - Introduction - Series authority records, preceding the paragraph beginning “Until 1983 …”:

Recommended policy statement

DCM Z1 - Introduction - Series authority records . Catalogers should do their best not to mix FRBR entities on the same series authority record. Elements that are specifically expression-related should not be added into work records and work-related elements should not be added into expression records (this specifically applies to type of work (380), language of expression (377), and content type (336)).

COMMENTER 3: Revised Policy Statement for above:DCM Z1 - Introduction - Series authority records. Catalogers should generally not mix FRBR entities on the same series authority record, though sometimes mixing is necessary when two series that are not the same work have the same name and are issued by multiple publishers. However, series that are the same work that are issued by different publishers should avoid mixing FRBR elements. Especially avoid adding type of work (380) to expression records, and language of expression (377) and content type (336) into work records.

5

Note to PCC SCT/PoCo: we assume we will eventually be allowed to record the expression-related element content type again. See also below, at I.3.

COMMENTER 1 : The Report hasn’t demonstrated that we have a problem with catalogers adding fields inappropriately. (The previous discussion was about how the data should be understood, not how it is being assigned.) The proposed instruction could make catalogers uncertain whether they should include fields that do belong in SARs. I think this proposed revision should not be accepted.

Commenter 2: I don’t find entirely convincing the reasons presented for why FRBR entities are not mixed in current RDA MARC series authority records, so the recommended policy statement that “Catalogers should do their best not to mix FRBR entities on the same series authority record” will be confusing if not impossible to apply at present. There is evidence of this tension throughout the report (e.g., the discussion about recording ISSN data in series authority records). For example, in section I.3, when commenting on the proposed LC-PCC PS 6.5.1.3 about recording Place of Origin of the Work in series authority records, the Standing Committee on Standards writes:

The Place of Origin of the work is typically associated with a manifestation of the work rather than the work itself. For a serial, it may represent only a passing association... Recording it as an element in these cases is of little practical use, so we should limit this recording, perhaps only when you are gaining some identification here. For now, generally limit it to when it is used as a qualifier and the place is actually the origin of the work, not merely the manifestation.

I encourage us to develop examples in the PCC series manual of what these instructions mean in practice in our current MARC environment, because the process of creating such examples may very well engender discussion of what is problematic or needs explanation. Most telling in this regard is the SCS’s question in I.5: “What do we have now that lets us know what level of FRBR a particular authority record belongs to?”

I.2. Adding “language of expression” to series authority records for works.

Discussion

Most series works, if they are expressed in a language, are expressed in only one language, inversely paralleling the typical bibliographic record which does triple duty (where the work and expression are implicitly represented because they are embodied in one and only one manifestation). One series authority record is usually created to primarily represent the work, but in current practice that series authority record may also “stand in” for the original language expression and the original manifestation of that series work. This practice (using the same record and access point to represent two different entities, the work and the expression), which originates with AACR2 practice for uniform titles, does not seem to be completely in accord with RDA, but it is parallel to the treatment of work-level records for non-series works. If a series

6

exists in a single expression, is it appropriate to add “language of expression” (in MARC 21 field 377) to a series authority record for a work (essentially making the record perform double duty)? Or should “language of expression” be only added to series authority records that are for expressions (e.g., a series authority record for a series* consisting of all the plays of Shakespeare in French translation)?

COMMENTER 1 : This is not a series; it is an analyzable multipart monograph receiving MARC series treatment.

Recommendation

The “Language of expression” element should not be added to work-level records because this is not an element of the work description. We may not agree with FRBR’s ultimate decision (followed by RDA) not to allow an element called “original language of the work”, but that’s the way the model was set up. As discussed in I.1, our NACO series practice does not, in fact, typically mix elements of different FRBR entities within the same authority record. We should not at this point be introducing practices that mix FRBR/RDA elements in these records. A series is a type of work, an aggregate work. In the world of works, they’re a pretty small subset. Language of expression is not (or at least should not be) recorded in other kinds of work records (e.g. n 78030104, Homer. Iliad). There is no compelling series-related reason to record the original language of the series in the work record for the series when we don’t record it for other works.

Recommended policy statement:

LC-PCC PS 6.11.1.3. PCC practice: Series authority records. Record language of expression in series authority records only if the record represents an expression. Do not record language of expression in series authority records that represent works.

SCS: Reword as LC-PCC PS 6.11.1.3. PCC practice: Series Authority Records: Record language of expression in series authority records only if the record represents an expression other than the original language. Use field 377 for recording the language.

Note: it would probably be preferable to generalize this to apply to all work and expression authority records, not just series, but these recommendations apply only to series policy. A generalized PS should make it clear that the policy applies to series as well as to other types of work-level authority records.

See also below, under I.3, for an addition to this proposed policy statement.

COMMENTER 1 : I have no problem with this policy statement.

I.3. Recording RDA/FRBR attributes

Discussion

7

Recording of many RDA work and expression attributes is optional. Should the PCC have a general policy in this area?

Regarding specific attributes:

a. Use 046 for work (RDA 6.4) and/or for expression records? (RDA 6.10)

b. Should the PCC have a recommendation about using “Form of work”? Also, should a list of terms for “Form of work” be devised?” (RDA 6.3; element applies to all works, not just series)

c. Use Content type on series authority records (RDA 6.9; element again applies to all expressions, not just series expressions; currently an RDA core element, but its use is currently restricted by LC-PCC PS to bibliographic records)

SCS: Questioning whether this is actually true? It was one of the recommendations from the PCC Expressions Task Group, but do not think it made it to the LC-PCC PSs.

COMMENTER 3: Yes, this is true according to DCM Z1 and the PCC Access Points for Expressions Task Group report. Add PS to 6.9 saying not to use content type in authority records.

d. Other attributes

e. Recording attributes when they already appear in an authorized access point?

Recommendation

In a linked data environment, it is desirable to encourage consistency whenever a given element is likely to be used for finding resources. This consistency should extend both to the terms used (drawn from a controlled vocabulary whenever possible) and to their assignment (assigned whenever the element is likely to be used for finding resources). If an element is unlikely to be used for finding resources but is likely to be used for selecting them from a result set, then this consistency is less critical but still desirable. Regardless of this, the inclusion of most non-core elements should generally remain at the discretion of the cataloger.

Ideally, the machine environment in which the authority record is created should be able to automatically generate the elements and more general values identified below under the LC-PCC PS for 6.3.1.3. For example, a 380 field containing the value “Series (Publications)” and its more specific variants might be automatically generated by the presence of specified values in 008/12 (Type of series): a = monographic series; b = multipart item; c = series-like phrase; z = other. However, we recommend recording such information in 3XX as well.

COMMENTER 1 : I believe that 008/12 = a may be associated with 380 Series (Publications), but not b, c or z. Multivolume monographs and other analyzable serials are not Series; they are different forms of resources that can, like Series, be described using 490/8XX in MARC. Series-like phrases are by definition not Series. It should also be noted that 008/12 is often miscoded, unfortunately.

8

Recommended policy statements

DCM Z1 Introduction - Series Authority Records. Record any attribute used as a qualifier in an authorized access point both in the authorized access point and as a separate element (using fields 046/336/368-386). Recording attributes in other situations is strongly encouraged.

COMMENTER 3: DCM Z1 Introduction - Series Authority Records. Record any attribute used as a qualifier in an authorized access point both in the authorized access point and as a separate element (using fields 046/336/368-388). Recording attributes in other situations is strongly encouraged.

UW: Change 386 to 388, as that is the newest MARC 38X field.

LC-PCC PS 6.4.1.3. PCC practice: Record Date of Work in series authority records using the 046 field whenever it has been used as a qualifier to the authorized access point. Otherwise, record date of work whenever it is readily ascertainable.

SCS: The work is the series, so the date of the work would be the date of publication of the component part that was published first, regardless of whether this part carried the lowest numbering or whether it carried a chronological designation that was earlier or later than its date of publication. The situation is clarified in CCM 10.4.3, which refers to the use of "first published issue" in AACR2 1.4F8.

LC-PCC PS 6.10.1.3. PCC practice: Record Date of Expression in series authority records using the 046 field whenever it has been used as a qualifier to the authorized access point for the expression. Otherwise, record date of expression whenever it is readily ascertainable.

COMMENTER 1 : Regarding all of the recommendations requiring that attributes used as qualifiers also be recorded as separate elements:

First check with Gary Strawn: how difficult would it be to write code to parse the qualifiers and assign them to the appropriate fields across the entire NAF? If he or someone else can do it (and he is already doing something close to this), we should not require that it be done manually.

COMMENTER 3: make recommendation to SCA, Gary, and LC to do periodic sweeps on all new and revised authority records to add elements programmatically. This can be done on all types of authority records, not just series records. However, we should still encourage catalogers to code all readily ascertainable elements on new and revised records.

LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3. PCC practice: Record form of work in all work-level series authority records using the 380 field. At a minimum in all work-level series authority records, include

9

380 $a Series (Publications) $2 lcsh

COMMENTER 3: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3. PCC practice: Catalogers may record form of work in work-level series authority records using the 380 field. Prefer using terms from a controlled vocabulary such as LCSH:


Recording form of work for the type of series may also be recorded. If doing so, only include the term for the specific type of series:

380 $a Monographic series $2 lcsh

or

380 $a Multipart monograph

(Multipart monograph series lacks $2 “Multipart monographs” is not currently in LCSH.)

Do not record “Series (Publications)” in records for series-like phrases. Instead, record

380 $a Series-like phrase

COMMENTER 1 : I believe that Series (Publications) is only appropriate for monographic series (008/13 = a). The other forms of work that receive MARC series treatment (490/8XX + SAR) are not Series in form. They are either Multipart monographs or Periodicals (or Yearbooks, etc.)

Commenter 2 : I do not agree with the recommendation to record in all cases the form of work in the 380 in SARs in addition to coding the 008/12 Type of series. The value of this additional work has not been proven. The 008 codes should simply be redefined or expanded as necessary and textual displays generated automatically.

NLM: Since NLM does not use LCSH we do not want to be required to add a 380 field with LCSH to series authority records. We do not have an equivalent term for the concept of a series in MeSH, so we believe the addition of this information should be optional.

Recording form of work for the type of series is also strongly encouraged:

380 $a Series (Publications) $a Monographic series $2 lcsh

10

COMMENTER 1 : “Series type” is an artifact of MARC, from a time before we used the concept “Form of work.” Now it is possible (and useful) to distinguish between Series (form of work) and Series (MARC treatment).

or



(Multipart monograph series require two 380 fields because “Multipart monographs” is not currently in LCSH.)

COMMENTER 1 : If Series (form of work) is applied only to Monographic series, as I would suggest, then these two 380s could not be on the same record because their modes of issuance would be mutually exclusive (a work cannot be simultaneously ongoing and finite).

Additional forms may also be recorded as appropriate (e.g. Plays, Poems, Novels. LCSH and LCGFT are good sources, but the Art and Architecture Thesaurus sometimes has better form terms than LCSH does, e.g. “Poems” vs. “Poetry”).

UW: We disagree with the recommendation to record “Series (Publications)” on all series authority records. Instead, the most specific term should be used, e.g. Monographic series. This corresponds to the general cataloging practice of using the most specific term, rather than terms at multiple levels of a hierarchy.

It would be advantageous to have consistent controlled vocabulary in this field. One way would be to establish terms such as “Multipart monograph” and “Series-like phrase” in LCSH.

An alternative would be to establish a MARC Source Code List using the terms found in the MARC Authority fixed field 008/12 (Type of Series):

008/12 - Type of series

a - Monographic seriesb - Multipart itemc - Series-like phrasen - Not applicablez – Other| - No attempt to code

For example:

Type of Series Source Codes

marctypser - MARC type of series term list

11

If a code were established for the type of series vocabulary used in 008/12, then catalogers could code the 380 field with the appropriate term:

380 Multipart item $2 marctypser

If the term "Multipart item" is undesirable, PCC could propose changing the term in 008/12 to Multipart monograph.

In terms of additional forms, another source should be cited: Genre Terms: A Thesaurus for Use in Rare Book and Special Collections Cataloging. By the end of the year LCGFT will include hundreds of literature terms, which may negate the comment about AAT having better terms than LCSH. What is a better term anyway? Why is Poems better than Poetry?



NOTE to PCC SCT and PoCo:

On series-like phrases, see also below, III.6. While it could be argued that a series-like phrase does not represent a work, and so cannot have a “form of work,” this seems to be a practical place to record this information.

SCS: Agrees that an authority record is a practical place to put series-like phrases.

At least one member of the larger series training task force was strongly opposed to the above treatment for multipart monographs, arguing that multipart monographs were not series. However, RDA’s definition of series is “A group of separate resources related to one another by the fact that each resource bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole.” This definition encompasses both monographic series and multipart monographs. Both are series as far as RDA is concerned. Additionally, the distinction is a somewhat artificial cataloger construct. Most users, including non-cataloging librarians, would see both as series.

Commenter 2 : I disagree with the statement that “Most users, including non-cataloging librarians, would see both [monographic series and multipart monographs] as series.” I would argue that considering analyzed multipart monographs as series, rather than making a distinction between these two types of resources, is actually the “artificial cataloger construct.” However, I am pleased to see an implicit recognition of the problem for library users in the recommendation in IV.6 that “the use of ‘(Series)’ as a qualifier should be discouraged for the authorized access point for series that could be treated as collected sets.” This may make moot the problem some of us anticipate for library users, since the 380 text that identifies these as series would presumably only be consulted by catalogers.

12

SCS: Agree with the conclusion that multipart monographs and monographic series can both be considered series.

COMMENTER 1 : As the aforementioned “at least one member,” I heartily disagree. My thoughts on the matter (a paper, and comments) are available on the PCCList, so I won’t elaborate further. If anyone wants more input, I’ll supply it at the drop of the hat, of course!

LC-PCC PS 6.5.1.3. PCC practice: Record Place of Origin of the Work in series authority records using the 370 field whenever it has been used as a qualifier to the authorized access point. Place of Origin of the Work may also be recorded in cases where it has not been used as a qualifier. Especially consider recording it if it would be helpful in retrieving or identifying the work, is particularly closely associated with the series, or would be otherwise helpful to users of the record.

SCS: The Place of Origin of the work is typically associated with a manifestation of the work rather than the work itself. For a serial, it may represent only a passing association (since conference proceedings often move from place to place). Recording it as an element in these cases is of little practical use, so we should limit this recording, perhaps only when you are gaining some identification here. For now, generally limit it to when it is used as a qualifier and the place is actually the origin of the work, not merely the manifestation.

COMMENTER 3:LC-PCC PS 6.5.1.3. PCC practice: Record Place of Origin of the Work in series authority records using the 370 field whenever it has been used as a qualifier to the authorized access point. Generally, do not use it in the 370 when it has not been used as a qualifier because: A) series often move from place to place; B) the same series can be simultaneously published in more than one place, or C) a series can be republished later in a different location.

LC-PCC PS 6.9.1.3. PCC practice: Record Content type in expression-level series authority records using the 336 field.


Content type (RDA 6.9) is a core element, and the prohibition against its use on authority records should be lifted. Under RDA Implementation Scenario 1, a series authority record will become a work or expression record. Content type is an expression element, so should only be recorded on expression level series authority records, not on the basic SAR work record. The purview of this task force is series, but we recommend that the lifting of the prohibition be general, not limited to series authority records. If so, we recommend that the PS be generalized; we do recommend that it be policy to record content type in expression-level series authority records; recording it in other types of expression-level records could be optional, if SCT/PoCo prefers.

13

SCS: It is premature at this point to make this into a “general” recommendation to record content type in expression-level in authority records beyond series, given the cautions on this by the Expressions Task Group.

COMMENTER 3: Agree with SCS. Do not include this in the PS’s until the Expressions Task Group report is finalized and its recommendations are incorporated (or not) into the policy statements.

LC-PCC PS 6.11.1.3. Series Authority Records. PCC practice: Record Language of expression in expression-level series authority records representing materials that have a language of expression using the 377 field. Record language of expression in series authority records only if the record represents an expression. Do not record language of expression in series authority records that represent works.

COMMENTER 3:LC-PCC PS 6.11.1.3. Series Authority Records. PCC practice: Record Language of expression in expression-level series authority records representing materials that have a language of expression using the 377 field only if the language is different from the original language of expression. Do not record language of expression in series authority records that represent works.

[Cf. discussion above under I.2]


While we are also in favor of recording other elements as well (e.g. other distinguishing characteristic of work or expression, which could be recorded in 381, 373, or 370 whether needed for the access point or not), these four are probably the most important. See below for further recommendations.

SCS: It's not clear whether this is about ALL language expressions, or just those that are different from the ORIGINAL language expression. That is, will the work-level authority record apply also to the original expression, or will we have an additional authority record for the original expression? It is implied in the policy statement as recommended by the TG that there should automatically be two authority records (one for the work, and one for the original language expression). This may not be realistic given our legacy file. Perhaps the wording in here needs to be changed for clarification? How about if we change the penultimate sentence to read:

“Record language of expression in series authority records only if the record represents an expression other than the original language.”

14

UW: We agree with SCS that the Task Force recommendation is not good and needs more work. Specifically, it is important to differentiate two cases: when there are two series (one is a translation of the other) and when there is one series (which contains multiple languages).

We question the inclusion of the language when naming an original language expression. This differs from current practice for other expressions: we think it is better to have a consistent practice across the board.

I.4. Series that Exist in More Than One Language Expression

Discussion

Series can exist in more than one expression for a number of reasons. This policy statement considers one of the more common reasons, differing languages. A series exists in more than one expression whenever one or more of the members of the series exists, within the series, in different language expressions, either as separate parts or as a single part containing a compilation of two or more language expressions.

Instead of creating an AACR2 uniform title with a “$l Language & Language” addition, analytical access points for works and expressions are now provided for each language expression in the comprehensive description. It seems clear that this should be followed for series that exist in different language expressions in separate volumes. Although an argument could be made that in a series in which individual volumes contain two or more language expressions all languages are integral to the series as a work and so all languages are present at the work level, as a practical matter it seems best to consider each language portion to be a different expression. This policy both follows the general policy for other works/expressions as well as the policy for series in which translations are presented in separate volumes.

The policy group recommends that the language be a part of the access point for both expressions, including that of the original language. There are a number of reasons for this, but one reason in the case of bilingual series is that it is not always evident which language is the original. We would prefer the cataloger not be required to spend time trying to figure out which one is which. If both languages are treated equally, then it doesn’t matter which one is the original. Additionally, most of these will be authorized access points for expressions. Routine addition of language will assist in distinguishing “series” expressions from other expressions of the same work.

UW: We question the inclusion of the language when naming an original language expression. This differs from current practice for other expressions: we think it is better to have a consistent practice across the board.

15

SCS: The most common situation is a matter of the analytic CONTAINING multiple expressions, in those cases where there is only one manifestation (that is, any given volume may contain more than one language, but there is not a parallel run of different language editions of the SERIES). The series as a work has only one expression, which happens to include multiple languages. An individual work CONTAINED IN the series may exist in multiple expressions. Another kind of situation is where isolated volumes are in a single language that is different from the rest of the series, and maybe even the title of the series is presented in that same other language. The series AAP should just be the same AAP as for all other volumes. A situation that would seem to legitimately call for the multiple expression AAPs is when the series is actually issued in separate language EDITIONS.

According to a TG member, this arose in the context of RDA 6.11.1.4 which a manifestation containing multiple language expressions receives an authorized access point for each expression. The argument was that if this were true for component parts, it would also be true for the series (e.g., the Loeb Classical Library). There is another argument, though. In the case of the Loeb Classical Library, the series itself has only a single expression. Just because it has components that are in multiple expressions doesn’t mean that the series is in multiple expressions. The whole identity of the series springs from it being a publication, and very often the things we use to qualify the access point are attributes of the original manifestation; whereas the identity of a novel springs from it starting out as a manuscript by the author.

Recommendation

1. Create a work-level authority record for the series. For bilingual series, this authorized access point would probably be used only for subject access.

100 1# $a Curtis, Jennifer Keats. $t Animal helpers

SCS: We do not feel this is necessary. Any decent computer program should be able to derive a work record from an existing expression record.

2. Create expression-level authority records for the language expressions containing authorized access points created by appending the language (including the original language) to the authorized access point for the series expression

100 1# $a Curtis, Jennifer Keats. $t Animal helpers. $l English100 1# $a Curtis, Jennifer Keats. $t Animal helpers. $l Spanish

3. Use the authorized access points for the language expressions in bibliographic records, as appropriate.


16

SCS: This would appear to mean that we would need to add a 240 $a <manifestation title>. $l <original language> to all bibliographic records for the initial publication. SCS does not agree that we need to supply the language in the authorized access point for everything.

4. For bilingual series, since the visual clue “language & language” will no longer exist in the authorized access point, we recommend including a 655 field in the bibliographic record for the resource:

655 #0 Bilingual books.

SCS: People could represent this in the analytical bib for the volume (is that what we are talking about? Or a serial bib for the series?) in any number of ways, e.g. 546 note. We don't think this is the place to make suggestions about using genre, and what the PCC "recommends" is interpreted more strongly than optional.

NLM agrees with the comments from the SCS that information regarding genre should be included in the bibliographic record and not in the series authority record.


LC-PCC PS 6.27. Authorized Access Points for Series [note: this entire PS needs to be reevaluated; this proposed policy statement only covers one aspect of the PS]. [section letter]. Series that Exist in More Than One Language Expression. PCC Practice:

1. Create a work-level authority record for the series.


This access point may be used in bibliographic records for subject access to resources about series that exist in more than one language expression. For other access points, use the authorized access point for the appropriate expression(s).



3. Use the authorized access point(s) for the language expressions in bibliographic records, as appropriate.

17


4. For bilingual series, include a 655 field in the bibliographic record for the resource:

655 #0 $a Bilingual books.

SCS: Disagrees with recommended policy statement. The series volume is one single expression; the WORK CONTAINED in the volume is in multiple expressions. Thinking of the Loeb Classical Library example in the next section (the series aspect, not the analytics aspect that is discussed there): this series is not in two expressions; the individual WORKS CONTAINED in the series are in two expressions. There is not an English expression of the Loeb Classical Library, nor a Latin expression of the Loeb Classical Library (not to mention a Greek expression); there is just the Loeb Classical Library--one series, in one expression, which contains other works, and those CONTAINED WORKS are the things that appear in multiple expressions. What are we gaining by having multiple SERIES AAPs? If anything, it's only going to make for a more confusing index.

COMMENTER 1 : I agree with the SCS. It’s such an important concept to be worked out and understood by practitioners.

I have been trying to answer the question as it applies to a serial. If each issue of a serial has parallel text in 2 languages, is it a compilation of 2 expressions, thus it needs an authorized access point (730) for each expression? Current policy seems to say so (LC-PCC 6.27.3), but still I wonder. My example serial was bilingual only for the most recent years of its existence, which was another wrinkle. A third wrinkle is: for this to be a compilation of two expressions, the content should be the same in each language, but practices vary widely between serials and even within the same serial over time. How do we tell what’s true for a serial, given that we may only be able to see one or two issues at the point of decision? And we know that it might change at any time. Further, if we discover that within each issue, the articles in one language are not the same as the articles in the other, do we have a compilation of two different works?

NLM agrees with comments from the SCS that series where different volumes are published in different languages does not mean that the series has multiple expressions. We also do not see the need to create expression level authority records for the original language.

COMMENTER 3: Do not include this policy statement

I.5. Series and Aggregate Works

Discussion

18

RDA 6.2.2.10.1 instructs us to “record the conventional collective title Works as the preferred title for a compilation of works that consists of, or purports to be, the complete works of a person, family, or corporate body.” 6.2.2.10 also contains instructions for other types of collections, including complete works in a single form and collections that contain some, but not all, of an author’s works. These instructions are of importance to series because it is very common for the works of an author to be published in a series.

The instructions treating preferred titles for collections deal with aggregate works. An aggregate work is a work that consists of a group of other works. RDA and FRBR explicitly note that aggregates are treated theoretically in the same way as any other work, that is, they are considered “a” work. As such, the same criteria for judging whether differences between iterations of a resource constitute a new work or merely a new expression of an existing work apply to aggregates as to any other type of work. With single works we generally think certain types of changes or differences are significant enough to signal the presence of a new work. These include paraphrases, adaptations for children, adaptations of a literary work in a different form or genre (e.g. a short story becomes a novel), parodies, motion picture adaptations, etc. On the other hand, certain types of changes or differences do not signal the presence of a new work, but rather are considered to signal the presence of a new expression of the same work. These include translations, revisions of the text by the same author (e.g., a new edition), certain changes to motion pictures such as colorization.

What criteria apply to aggregates? The same criteria as for single works, but also a criterion dealing with the composition of the collection. If we had a collection of novels A, B, and C, and that same collection were translated from English into French, the new resource would probably be considered a new expression of the same aggregate work. But if instead the new resource contains novels C, D, and E, this is pretty clearly a different aggregate work. It is of course more nuanced than this, but a factor in deciding whether one aggregate work is the same “work” (in the FRBR sense) as another aggregate work seems to be whether or not the aggregates contain the same individual works.

Using this criterion it seems clear that most collections that consist of some but not all of an author’s works are going to be different aggregate works because they normally contain different individual works. This has implications for the choice of preferred title for these aggregate works.

But what about a collection that purports to be the complete works of an author? In the abstract, can there be more than one “complete works” of an author? To give a concrete example, are all the various publications of the complete works of Shakespeare expressions of a single aggregate work, or is each one a separate aggregate work?

It’s a given that collections of “complete works” will differ somewhat one from another. RDA recognizes this when it says “consider complete works to include all works that are complete at the time of publication” (6.2.2.10.1). These are apparently considered the same aggregate work

19

as another collection published a few years later, when the author has produced another work or two. Similarly RDA’s language about a work that “consists of, or purports to be, the complete works” recognizes that various iterations of the aggregate “works” might have slight differences. But RDA is not explicit on this issue, so we have a policy choice: are different iterations of an author’s complete works the same aggregate work or are they different aggregate works? The answer has practical implications.

Arguments in favor of considering them to be the same aggregate work:

By definition “complete” works means “complete” (with RDA’s proviso about “at the time of publication”). One publication of the complete works of an author contains, in theory at least, the exact same set of works as another publication of the complete works.

Given that, we shouldn’t require catalogers to try to figure out if the different iterations do indeed contain the same individual works (this is the point of RDA’s “purports” language). Catalogers should be able to take at face value what an aggregate declares itself to be.

It is, however, obvious that different collections of “complete” works will differ in matters such as arrangement of the works, presence of different introductions and indexes, etc. Such differences do not cross the line to “new work;” instead, they signal the presence of a new expression. (Or do they?)

Arguments in favor of considering them to be different aggregate works:

It is obvious that different collections of “complete” works do differ in many ways, including arrangement of the works, etc. Additionally, in spite of what RDA says about “purports to be” and “complete at the time of publication”, we know that in fact collections purporting to be “complete” are not always complete and therefore different collections might well contain different works from one another. If the presence or absence of the same works is a factor in deciding if aggregates are the same work or not, then such collections are not the same aggregate work if they don’t in fact contain all the works.

COMMENTER 1 : There is also the matter of works “attributed” to an author, which might be included in Complete Works by some publishers but not others. We see this with artists’ works I know, so maybe it also happens with literary works.

Implications of considering all compilations of the complete works of an author to be the same aggregate work:

In this case, there is only one work. There can never be more than one “Works” of an individual author because by definition “complete” means everything. Another complete collection would also contain the same “everything.”

20

Therefore, the preferred title for the aggregate will never conflict with another work with the same preferred title. If the conventional collective title “Works” is chosen as the preferred title of the collection, it will never need qualifying (at the work level) because it will never conflict.

Differentiation between collections would instead take place at the expression level. In terms of authorized access points, differentiation will be taken care of by adding expression elements to the authorized access point for the work such as language, other distinguishing characteristic of the expression, etc.

Implications for considering different compilations of the complete works of an author to be different aggregate works:

In this case, each collection is a different aggregate work. Therefore, the preferred title “Works,” if chosen as the preferred title of the aggregate,

will always conflict with the preferred title of another complete aggregate if an author’s works have been published more than once.

Differentiation between collections takes place at the work level by the addition of qualifiers to the preferred title “Works.”

A translation of the complete works of an author (e.g., Shakespeare) would simply be a different compilation of the complete works of the author, i.e., following the first bullet point above, it would be considered a separate work, not an expression of any work. Therefore it would be qualified at the work level (e.g., Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Works (Orizons) for a French compilation; Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Works (Schlegel and Tiek) for a German compilation). Since these collections would be considered “works” there would presumably be no need for further qualification at the expression level (e.g. by the addition of language) since theoretically they aren’t translations (even though in reality we know that they are).

This is more than a theoretical discussion when it comes to series. If we want to gather together individual members of a series that purports to contain the complete works of an author we need to have a method of doing this. The answer to the question is crucial whether we are operating in an entity-relationship system (where descriptions are linked) or in our current environment where we link the individual members of the series by using authorized access points. In a future entity-relationship environment the answer to the question will determine if the individual works are linked to the aggregate at the work or expression level. In our current environment differing methods have been used to create the linking authorized access points, but the fundamental difference is whether the differentiation happens at the work or at the expression level. Resolution of this issue is of importance for all types of work but is particularly important for series.

Differentiation at the work level:

$a Ovid, $d 43 B.C.-17 A.D. or 18 A.D. $t Works (Series : Loeb classical library)

21

The complete works of Ovid are published in the Loeb classical library in Latin text with English translation. In this case, the aggregate work is conceived of as being the series, a different aggregate work from other iterations of Ovid’s works. This aggregate work is distinguished from others by the addition of a qualifier to the preferred title: first “Series”, and because Ovid’s works have been published in more than one series, by the title of the specific series. The two expressions are brought out by expression-level authorized access points:

$a Ovid, $d 43 B.C.-17 A.D. or 18 A.D. $t Works (Series : Loeb classical library). $l English

$a Ovid, $d 43 B.C.-17 A.D. or 18 A.D. $t Works (Series : Loeb classical library). $l Latin

Differentiation at the expression level:

$a Euripides. $t Works. $l French $s (Collection des universites de France)

In this case the complete works of Euripides are conceived of as being a single entity, whether published as a series, as a single unit, etc. Differentiation between iterations of the works is done at the expression level: here, by the language and, because there are more than one expression of Euripides’s works in French, by the addition of other distinguishing characteristic (the name of the series). Differentiation between expressions is crucial when dealing with series. Series cannot be identified under the procedure described in LC-PCC PS 6.27.3 (all expressions in a single language sharing the same authorized access point).

In terms of the LC/NACO authority file, it would be simpler overall to consider “Works” to refer at the work-level to the same aggregate work and differentiate at the expression level. Otherwise every “Works” would need a separate work-level authority record, and additional expression-level records would probably be needed as well in most cases.

This seems to be an area where a program-wide policy decision might be in order rather than leaving it to individual cataloger judgment, since the result is significantly different choices in authorized access points.

Recommendation

The task group believes that various iterations of the “complete works” aggregate should be treated as the same work. Differentiation, if necessary, should occur at the expression level.

COMMENTER 1 : The result keeps the qualifier (Series) out of the authorized access point for a multipart monograph, which is good, and otherwise it seems fine (in my limited experience with literary resources).

SCS: We need to have a “language of original expression” element; and we should use the language of expression in the AAP only when it is not the language of original expression. This

22

appeals since we are asking catalogers to split FRBR hairs. It just seems that the more explicit information that we can give them to help in that process, the better. What do we have now that lets us know what level of FRBR a particular authority record belongs to?

NLM agrees that it would be simpler to consider “works” to refer to same aggregate work and differentiate at the expression level.

COMMENTER 3: See Issue 5 at the end of this document

See also III.4, below.

II. Transcription Issues

II.1. Sources of information (RDA 2.12.1.2)

II.1a. CIP and other outside sources

Discussion

Should we look beyond the sources of information set out in RDA 2.12.1.2 when determining whether a series (and series authority record) is involved?

LC/NACO practice under AACR2, set out in RI 1.6A2, recommended that, for printed material, a series statement embedded in the text of the preliminaries, in the colophon, or on the jacket be accepted, but that a series statement embedded elsewhere not be accepted, though this statement might be recorded as a quoted note, followed by its location. RDA does not make a distinction between the preliminaries (which consequently are not defined in RDA) and other sources in the resource, stipulating only that preference be given to “sources in which the information is presented formally.”

One of our members pointed out that check-in staff may be confused if a series is established based on a statement embedded in the text of the resource. This would be doubly true for series based on statements taken from outside the resource.

If it was felt necessary to record such “embedded” statements, it might be preferable to record them in a note as quoted text and its location within the resource rather than as formal series statements, especially for the benefit of check-in staff.

SCS: Prefer to use a 490 field (without brackets) if the series is established based on a statement embedded in the text of the resource. The location of the series statement can be explained in a 500 note if it is felt to be necessary.

Commenter 2 : 1a-11.1b, II.5a. I agree with the SCS’s approach to transcribing series information from CIP and other outside resources. This is eminently practical, helpful to collections development and acquisitions staff, and in the spirit of RDA.

23

The existing LC-PCC PS for 2.12.1.2 already excludes CIP data as a source for the series statement. This seems reasonable, since the CIP data represents the publisher’s intention at a point prior to publication, and the absence of the series from the published manifestation implies a change in that intention.

SCS: The last assertion is not always true; sometimes an item is actually considered to be part of the series, although the publisher leaves that information out except in the CIP block.

NLM: While we understand the value of continuing to record already established series even when only appearing embedded in the text of the resource, we question the creation/establishment of new series based solely on embedded text. We do not think that catalogers should waste time reading all of the prefatory material to determine if perhaps there is a series statement somewhere which should be established.

Recommendation

Discourage the recording of any series names that are not presented formally.

Recommended policy statement [add the following to current language]

LC-PCC PS 2.12.1.2. Sources. Do not transcribe a series statement (in 490) that is not formally presented, such as a statement that is embedded in the main text of the resource (e.g., in the preface). If recording information about a series statement not presented formally is considered important for identification or access, use a note.

COMMENTER 3: LC-PCC PS 2.12.1.2. Sources. Catalogers may transcribe a series statement in the 490 field that is: A) not formally presented, such as a statement that is embedded in the main text of the resource (e.g., in the preface), B) taken from a source outside the resource, or C) is only found in the CIP data. If found in B or C, enclose the statement in brackets. Optionally, if considered important, give a note explaining the source of the series. This applies to both main series and subseries.

490 0 [No stone unturned ; $v v. 1]500 Series from publisher’s website, viewed Oct. 3, 2014.

SCS: Another potential issue is if the series has been established but some volumes of the series have the statement embedded in the introduction. SCS disagrees with the recommendation and feels that we can put the series in the 490 field with brackets as needed, and an explanatory note as to source of series in the 500 field if desired. Series information is series information, no matter where you find it. It seems more reasonable to use the element

24

specifically defined for the purpose, and RDA has provision for taking information from outside the resource. Many systems may still not provide access based on a note alone. RDA purposely gives catalogers more leeway as to sources of information in the resource. We had problems with the characterization of “series statements” not presented formally; when what they are really saying is that this is only series information; can you have a series statement and then not record it? We also were concerned with the use of “main text” that then uses an “e.g.” for the preface. (Many people would not consider this as “main text.”

COMMENTER 1 : Surprisingly often I’ve found series information online that differs from what is printed (or not) on the publication; publishers sometimes re-assign resources among their series, and/or renumber them. Listings printed in later issues of a series may also show changed information for the earlier issues—titles dropped from the series, added, renumbered. If information is found online (publisher’s website), date-viewed should be part of the note. Invoking the Principle of representation, I like the idea of limiting 490 to series statements found on the resource itself (though series statements found elsewhere should get a note, and an 8XX when considered important). This is similar to what the Task Force recommends, though not identical.

II.1b. Subseries

Discussion

RDA 2.2.4 allows us to record information about a series when this information appears outside the resource. Following this general instruction, we have written in the series training manual that it is okay to take information about a main series/subseries from outside the resource (e.g., a publisher’s website) if such information doesn’t appear on the resource itself.

It might be important to re-state explicitly the overarching policy and its implications for subseries, because there may be cases where the main series/subseries relationship is clear outside the resource but not within.

On the other hand, it is not clear that information on series/subseries could ever be taken from outside the resource, regardless of whether it clarified the relationship. AACR 2 12.1B4 and 12.1B6 state that a subseries is recorded as such only when its title appears with that of the main series in a single source within the resource. RI 12.1B4 modified this to state that any prescribed source within the resource that contains both should be treated as the chief source.

AACR2 practice has carried over in LC-PCC PS 2.12.1.2.

SCS: The wording in the discussion is confusing; it sounds like it's contradicting what was argued in the previous section. Series information should be put into the series statement, regardless of where it is found, and brackets used as needed. The publisher may leave off the main series and/or the subseries information, but if it is found elsewhere it's still pertinent.

25

COMMENTER 1 :Under RDA, if I found a series/subseries together on the publisher’s website but the second series appeared alone on the publication itself, under RDA I’m not sure what I should do. I’d want to give preference to what appears on the resource.

Recommendation

Do not change current policy.

COMMENTER 3: See reworded policy statement above for 2.12.1.2.

II.2. Order of preference for title page substitute (RDA 2.12.1.2)

Discussion

The order of preference for a title page substitute (when no bona fide title page is present) under AACR2 12.0B1 was: analytical title page, cover, caption, masthead, editorial pages, colophon, other pages. Under RDA 2.12.2.2 and 2.2.2.2, “editorial pages” are no longer a discrete category.

In discussion, the disappearance of “editorial pages” as a discrete category was felt to have minimal impact, if any. The practical consequence is that a series title appearing in the colophon will now be preferred over a different form appearing on the editorial pages (unless the masthead—a more preferred source—appears on the editorial pages).

Recommendation

Do not change current policy. Apply the RDA hierarchy of sources in 2.12.2.2. No PS needed.

SCS: Agrees with the recommendation

COMMENTER 1 : Me too

II.3. Capitalization of 2nd word in series statement when 1st word is a generic noun

Discussion

Prior to the adoption of RDA, if the series statement began with a common noun that indicates ‘series’ (e.g., Bibliotheca), PCC policy was to capitalize the first word (noun or adjective) after that introductory word, both in the series statement and the series access point

490/830 Serie Literatura

RDA A.3 “Titles of works” refers to A.4 “Titles of manifestations.” The instructions are to: “Capitalize the first word or the abbreviation of the first word in a title and in a title of a part, section, or supplement (see 2.3.1.7). Capitalize other words within titles applying the guidelines

26

given under A.10-A.55, as applicable to the language involved.” The alternative under RDA A.4 which LC follows, gives us discretion as to capitalization.

SCS: We believe that they mean the alternative under RDA A.1, not A4

UW: Nothing in the discussion references capitalization rules for various languages. Might there be a convention in some languages that resulted in the second word being capitalized in AACR2 and RDA? It may not simply be an "old custom". It might be worth consulting some style guides in French, Spanish, etc. or consulting with our colleagues in national libraries where these languages are the official language.

In the case of “Serie Literatura” the word “Serie” is either the first word in the title or it is an introductory word. RDA 2.3.1.6 tells us “Do not transcribe words that serve as an introduction and are not intended to be part of the title.”

If "Serie” is not the first word in the title because it was not intended to be part of the title, then it should not be transcribed. The title is “Literatura”. If it is the first word in the title because it is intended to be part of the title, then the title is “Serie literatura”, and the capitalization called for in A.4 should be followed. We can’t really be talking about “preferred titles that include such introductory words” because according to 2.3.1.6 titles do not include introductory words not intended to be part of the title, and therefore if we transcribe “Serie” it is because we have decided it is not an introductory word not intended to be part of the title.

COMMENTER 1 : I don’t think this is an introductory word; based on the examples in RDA, that means something else. This is an appositive phrase. I think the argument above misses the nuance present in the European languages where this kind of series title is most often found: the introductory word sort of is and sort of isn’t part of the title, intentionally. That’s why I liked the convention of capitalizing the 2nd word.

There seems to be no purpose in perpetuating this old custom. It just leads to confusion (“is this an introductory word?” “should I be capitalizing this later word?”)

Recommendation

Discontinue the previous practice. No new policy statement needed, because this is simply following RDA, unless SCT/PoCo feels the practice will linger without an explicit policy statement. This information should be emphasized in official training documentation.

COMMENTER 1 : I think it’s fine to abandon the practice—the capitalization or non-capitalization of a letter doesn’t affect access. (Europeans could take it as additional evidence of American dunderheadedness though. We could poll French/Italian/Spanish/German colleagues.) I wouldn’t belabor this in training—I’d just say “officially we used to capitalize the second word and we don’t officially do it now, but either way is okay since it doesn’t matter.”

27

COMMENTER 3: Agree to abandon the practice and shift any needed retraining to the series trainers.

SCS: Suggested LC-PCC PS for RDA A.4.1 to allay confusion:Under AACR2, it was PCC practice (RI A.4A1) that, when a title began with introductory words used in apposition to the noun or noun phrase that followed it, both the introductory word and the word following were capitalized (e.g., Série Ecrivains du XXe siècle; Serie Estudios de literatura y pensamiento hispánicos). This practice was discontinued with the implementation of RDA.

II.4. Parallel titles.

II.4a. Series

Discussion

If the series statement on the priority source gives the title in more than one language, the RDA instruction for recording parallel titles of series (2.12.3.3) refers us back to the general instruction for recording parallel titles proper, which is to “record the titles in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source or sources of information.” (2.3.3.3)

Old LCRI: If the series statement on the priority source gives the title in more than one language, record first in the series statement (490 field) of the analytic record the title that linguistically matches the content of the resource, and thus matches the 245 field of the analytic bibliographic record. Do we want to propose a Policy Statement to restore the old ordering?

The group thinks that RDA as written is adequate here. Series title proper is core (2.12.2); Parallel title proper is not. There is no need for an instruction to record the first (or any) parallel series title (which would in effect make it core for PCC). The treatment in the 490 does not need to “match” the 245 field. This should be a matter for cataloger judgment.

Recommendation

Follow RDA as written. No policy statement needed. This does, however, need to be emphasized in training documentation.

II.4b. Subseries.

RDA instructs us in 2.12.11.3 to record parallel titles for subseries. This instruction leads us to 2.3.3.3, which leads us to 2.3.1. LC-PCC PS 2.3.3 tells us that recording parallel titles proper is core for LC/PCC, but we have lost LCRI 1.6H6, which allowed us to limit the recording of parallel series/subseries titles. We would previously record the first parallel title (main series and subseries) and any subsequent parallel title (main series and subseries) in English. We were

28

allowed to consider for possible parallel title transcription only those main series and subseries given in the same language. Is PCC in agreement that we should simply record parallel titles as they appear, without limit?

Parallel title of a series or subseries is not core and the cataloger always has the option of recording only one or none of the parallel titles. LC-PCC PS 2.3.3 only applies to the title proper and so does not govern parallel titles of series or subseries.

Recommendation

No policy statement is necessary. Allow the cataloger to exercise judgment.

SCS: Keep the distinction between whether an element is core or not, and how to record it separate-- this is a training issue if we think they are being confused.

II.5. Transcription of numbering

II.5a. Series numbering appears only in CIP data, on publisher’s website, etc. (Relating to Series statements: MARC 490)

Discussion

If the number appears only in CIP data (whether from LC or another agency) or in a bibliography, under AACR2 RI 1.6G the numbering was not transcribed when it appeared only in CIP data, and this provision has been carried over to RDA as LC-PCC PS 2.12.9. However, RDA 2.12.9.2, like AACR2 0B2 before it, allows numbering within the series to be taken from any source within the resource.

As argued under II.1a above, since CIP data represents the publisher’s intention at a point prior to publication, the absence of the series from the published manifestation implies a change in that intention. By analogy, the absence of numbering from the published resource (outside the CIP data) can be interpreted as the publisher’s intention not to number the parts of the series.

Similarly, numbering that appears only in a listing in a bibliography and not in any part of the published series, would not be recorded under RDA (in 490), since such a listing would be outside the resource.

SCS: There seems to be a discrepancy between 2.12.9.2 (Sources of information for numbering within series) and 2.2.4 (Other sources of information). In 2.12.9.2, it says "Take the numbering within a series from any source within the resource." That's all. But in 2.2.4, Numbering within series is specifically given as one of the elements for which information can be taken from any source, and to indicate when the information is taken from outside the resource itself. It looks like 2.12.9.2 needs to be revised to bring it in line with 2.2.4, allowing for the recording of information from outside the resource

Recommendation

29

Do not change current policy (don’t transcribe from CIP data). See also III.3a.

SCS: In some instances, series numbering may be lacking on the resource, or may appear only in the CIP data block, but other evidence of the numbering exists (e.g., numbers on other volumes, numbering on the publisher website, etc.). When supported by such evidence, series numbers may be supplied and enclosed within brackets, per RDA 2.2.4.

COMMENTER 1 : A lot of cataloger’s judgment is called for, as each case is a little different.

COMMENTER 3: LC-PCC PS 2.12.9.2. Sources. Catalogers may record series numbering in the 490 field that is: A) not formally presented, such as a numbering that is embedded in the main text of the resource (e.g., in the preface), B) taken from a source outside the resource, or C) is only found in the CIP data. If found in B or C, enclose the numbering in brackets. Optionally, if considered important, give a note explaining the source of the numbering or any numbering irregularities (e.g. publisher retrospectively changes series numbering). This applies to both main series and subseries.

490 0 Methods in molecular biology, $x 1940-1626 ; $v [v. 919]500 Series numbering from resource HTML page, viewed Oct. 3, 2014.

500 Called v. 42 of the series on the resource; called v. 43 on publisher’s website.

II.5b. Numbering in series statements (490): Substitute Arabic numerals for Roman or other numerals in series numbering in series statements? (RDA 2.12.9.3 & 1.8, and LC-PCC PS)

Discussion

RDA 2.12.9.3 refers to RDA 1.8 for the form of numbers used in series statements (490 $v): “Record numerals in the form preferred by the agency creating the data, unless the substitution would make the numbering less clear.” LC follows the first alternative: Record numerals in the form in which they appear on the source of information. Roman numerals would be recorded as Roman numerals.

Recommendation

Follow the first alternative to transcribe numerals as they appear in the series statement. Information in series statements is similar to the title element (2.3), in that it is transcribed information, so it makes sense to use the form of the numerals that appears in the resource itself. No new PS needed. See also III.3c.

COMMENTER 1 : Yes

30

II.5c. Choice of form of series numbering in series statement when resource offers multiple presentations (RDA 2.12.9 & 2.12.17):

Discussion

RDA 2.12.9 on series numbering and 2.12.17 on subseries numbering allow us to take the numbering from any source. However, there’s no guidance in RDA or the LC-PCC PS specifically about the choice of captions and/or form of series numbering when they appear differently in different places within the resource. For monographic series, it seems logical to apply the instructions in RDA 2.6 regarding Numbering of serials, since monographic series are serials too. According to RDA 2.6.2.2, we should take the numeric and/or alphabetic designation of the first issue or part of a sequence from the following sources (in order of preference):

a) the source on the first issue or part of that sequence that has the title proper (see 2.3.2.2)

b) another source within the first issue or part of that sequence (see 2.2.2)

c) one of the other sources of information specified at 2.2.4).

For multipart monographs, it seems desirable to also take the series numbering from the same source in the first or earliest part available that has the title proper.

Made up example

Series title page: Advances in serials management volume 1

Spine: Advances in serials management 1

Cover: ASM no. 1

Use in series statement: Advances in serials management ; $v volume 1

Recommendation

Add a section to LC-PCC PS at 2.12.9, and a reference to 2.12.17, referring to the LC-PCC PS at 2.12.9.

Recommended policy statement:

LC-PCC PS 2.12.9. PCC practice: When transcribing the series statement, if presentation of the series numbering differs within the resource, select the form found in the same source as that chosen for the title proper of the series. If different forms of numbering appear in that source, or no numbering is found in that source, record one of the presentations; generally prefer a form with a caption over one without.

31

http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-2940#rda2-2940



SCS: We feel that transcription of the series statement has many variables, thus it is best to be left to the cataloger’s judgment.

Here is a slight reworking of the TG recommended policy statement:

LC-PCC PS 2.12.9. PCC practice: When transcribing the numbering within the series, if the form of the series numbering differs within the resource, select the form found in the same source as that chosen for the title proper of the series. If different forms of numbering appear in that source, or no numbering is found in that source, prefer a form with a caption over one without.

COMMENTER 1 : Sounds good.

COMMENTER 3: Ditto

II.6. Title in more than one form (RDA 2.3.2.5)

Discussion

Currently, if both the full form of the title proper and an acronym/initialism appear in equally prominent sources, we are instructed to prefer the full form for serials and integrating resources. However, for multipart monographs, RDA gives no preference, leaving it up to cataloger’s judgment.

Recommendation

No PCC policy is needed. The cataloger should follow RDA. The reasoning “since the acronym/initialism is derived from the full title” could be applied to any title transcription, not just multipart monographs; so should a PS be considered for all monographs, not just series? If so PCC should just propose an RDA revision.

SCS: RDA does have an order of preference-- 2.3.2.5 says to consider sequence, layout, typography, and comprehensiveness. The exception for serials and integrating resources is a compromise for coordination with the ISSN rules. It may be more efficient for serial catalogers to have a cut and dried preference, but in monograph cataloging, layout can make an enormous difference in how the title proper is identified. Multipart monographs can sometimes be series, but that doesn't make them serials. We agree with the Task Group that no policy statement or rule change is called for.

COMMENTER 1 : OKCOMMENTER 3: Agree that no policy statement is needed.

II.7. Recording the title when the main series is never present but subseries designation is

Discussion

32

When the main series is not present on the preferred source, but the subseries designation and subseries title are, we are told to follow RDA 2.3.1.7:

“If the title of a part, section, or supplement is presented on the source of information without the title that is common to all parts or sections, record the title of the part, section, or supplement as the title.”

LCRI 1.6B instructed us to use hyphen-hyphen between the subseries designation and subseries title, instead of using ISBD, and to capitalize the first word after hyphen-hyphen: LC/PCC practice: When such configurations are being recorded in the absence of a main series title, use a dash (two adjacent hyphens) in place of a comma-space to make it absolutely clear that the entire configuration is the title.

490 $a Serie G--Estudios doctrinales ; $v 26

490 $a Serie E--Varios / Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas ; $v 8

490 $a Serie B--Forskningsrapporter / Yleisradio Oy., Suunnittelu- ja tutkimusosasto ; $v 3

This rule interpretation has not been brought forward in RDA. Should the punctuation be ISBD?

RDA 2.3.1.7 is talking about recording the information as part of the description, in 490s; Is there any reason why we shouldn’t punctuate “Serie G, Estudios doctrinales” in 490? The potential sticking point might be that while “Serie G” and “Estudios doctrinales” both appear on the resource the supposed “main series” isn’t present (perhaps because there isn’t a “main series”?)

2.3.1.7 is talking about transcription, not creating an authorized access point.

As for the authorized access point, can’t we form it as usual “Main series. Part number, Part title” even if only “Part number, Part title” appear on a resource, if somehow we know what the Main series title is? The source of information for the preferred title under 6.2.2.2 is pretty expansive and RDA doesn’t state anywhere that all pieces of the preferred title have to come from the same source.

Recommendation

Transcribe in 490 following ISBD punctuation, e.g., “Serie G, Estudios doctrinales”. If the “main series” has been identified, form the authorized access point “Main series. Part number, Part title”. If the “main series” has not been identified, form the authorized access point “Part number, Part title”.

Recommended policy statements:

33

LC-PCC PS 2.3.1.7. PCC practice: When transcribing the series statement, if main series title is not present on the preferred source, transcribe part number and part title without the main series title, even if the main title is known.

EXAMPLE

490 $a Serie G, Estudios doctrinales

SCS: 2.3.1.7 was just changed due to 6JSC/CCC/11—the proposed practice above is really just re-stating the instruction and no longer seems necessary.

LC-PCC PS 6.27.2. PCC practice: If a part number and/or part title is present on the preferred source but the main series title is not, but the main series title is known from other sources, base the authorized access point on the main series title.

EXAMPLE

130 $a Main series title. $n Part number, $p Part title

If a part number and/or part title is present on the preferred source but a main series title is not, but the main series title is not known from other sources, base the authorized access point on the part number.

130 $a Serie G, $p Estudios doctrinales

SCS: This is re-stating what is in the serials exception to 6.27.2.2 (first paragraph). As to the second paragraph, how could a cataloger do anything but not record a title that they didn’t know?

III. Access Point Issues

See also II.3.

III.1. Bibliographic record: Use of 8XX with/without 490?

Discussion

It is desirable to synchronize BSR policy with CONSER policy in recommending the use of 490 and 8XX.

Three options present themselves:

a. Use 8XX series authorized access point without 490, and record minor title change variants on series authority record (i.e., Change BSR policy to current CONSER policy)

b. Use 490 for monographs ONLY when the transcribed series is different from the established series in the 830 field, or when the series is not established (i.e., no 830 field).

34

c. Change CSR policy to accord with BSR policy: in all cases, use 490 for series statement (or a 5XX field mentioning the series, such as a reprint note, or a 7XX linking field mentioning the series) and an 8XX for series authorized access point when traced.

Recommendation

The group is in favor of changing CSR policy to be in accord with BSR policy. Using 8XX without recording the series statement in a 490 (or a note such as 534 or a 7XX linking field) appears to be doing less than what is called for in RDA core (Series title proper, subseries title proper, series numbering, and subseries numbering are all core sub-elements in RDA). We are definitely not in favor of changing BSR policy to current CSR policy (option #1). Option #2 appears to be just going back to 440, but using a different MARC field. If we’re going to do that why not just reinstate 440? (Not that we are in favor of that.)


LC-PCC PS 25.1.1.3. PCC Practice: When recording a relationship to a series using an authorized access point in 8XX, always support the access point by recording the series statement in 490, a note (such as 534), or a 7XX linking field.

SCS: SCS did not come to an agreement on whether to keep or change the current CSR approach to be in accord with the BSR approach. See outstanding issue #3 at end of document

UW: Series statement is a core element in RDA (2.12) so transcription of series statements in 490 should be required. CONSER has been working to come into line with RDA and needs to talk about this issue. Beside the fact that series is core, we think that the presence of the form on the piece supports maintenance later.

III.2. Basis for identification of the series (series authority record) when part (or AACR2/RDA description of part) with lowest number or earliest date is not available (RDA 2.1.2.3)

Discussion

AACR2 practice was to prefer the form of title found on a PCC AACR2 bibliographic record for the component part with lowest number or earliest date or an LC-PCC AACR2 serial bibliographic record, if the bibliographic description in that record was based on such a component part.

Under RDA, both the title proper of the series and the series authorized access point should also be based on the earliest volume of the series in hand or the information in the existing 670 if the 670 represents an earlier title in the series.

Instructions for transcribing the title proper of the series have not changed from AACR2. However, RDA requires that designations not be abbreviated and, depending on agency practice (RDA 1.8.2 1st alternative), numerals be transcribed in the form in which they appear on the resource. LC has opted to apply the 1st alternative.

35

Recommendation

When establishing a new series and considering existing records in the database, evidence for series title and numbering designation must be taken from the earliest volume or from an LC-PCC bibliographic record for the earliest volume with a description that conforms to RDA rather than AACR2. When upgrading AACR2 series authority records to RDA change the form of numbering designation (642) if appropriate, but only if you have evidence from the same or an earlier part than the part that was the basis for identification when the series was originally established. If you do not have this evidence, do not revise the series numbering example.


LC-PCC PS 2.1.2.3. Series. PCC practice. When upgrading an AACR2 series authority record to RDA or revising an existing RDA authority record, change the preferred title only if strong evidence exists to change it (e.g., the cataloger has evidence from an earlier part than the part that was the basis for identification when the series was originally established, and the change does not constitute a major change). Do not revise the preferred title in the absence of such evidence. On series numbering practice, see also LC-PCC PS 24.6.

COMMENTER 3:LC-PCC PS 6.2.2.3. Series. PCC practice. When upgrading an AACR2 series authority record to RDA or revising an existing RDA authority record, change the preferred title only if strong evidence exists to change it (e.g., the cataloger has evidence from the first part than the part that was the basis for identification when the series was originally established, and the change does not constitute a major change). Do not revise the preferred title in the absence of such evidence. On series numbering practice, see also LC-PCC PS 24.6.

SCS: Believe it is inappropriate to be talking about “preferred titles” in a Chapter 2 (2.1.2.3) Policy Statement; this needs to be moved to Chapter 6.

LC-PCC PS 24.6. [new section letter]. Series Numbering Practice in Existing Records. PCC practice: Generally accept the numbering practice recorded in the 642 field of an existing record. When upgrading an AACR2 series authority record to RDA or revising an existing RDA authority record change the numbering practice only if strong evidence exists to change it (e.g., the cataloger has evidence from an earlier part than the part that was the basis for identification when the series was originally established). Do not revise the series numbering example in the absence of such evidence.

COMMENTER 3:LC-PCC PS 24.6 Section I. Series Numbering Practice in Existing Records. PCC practice: Generally accept the numbering practice recorded in the 642 field of an existing record. When upgrading an AACR2 series authority record to RDA or revising an existing RDA authority record do not change the numbering or caption practice unless it is clearly wrong. Do not

36

revise the series numbering example merely to change caption choice. If there is an actual change from one numbering sequence to another numbering sequence, add an additional 642.

NLM does not agree with this recommendation. Adjusting the series numbering practice when upgrading to RDA will have an effect on how series are indexed and displayed. We do not want to have to perform manual maintenance on all the bibliographic records which contain this series to adjust the numbering. In addition, adjusting the series numbering could in some cases affect the call number for analytic items. We would prefer to continue to use the existing series numbering even when upgrading the series record to RDA (this is our current policy).

Commenter 2 : The proposed LC-PCC PS 24.6 provides instructions for accepting the numbering practice in the 642 field of an existing AACR2 SAR unless strong evidence exists to change it. This is helpful. We also need instructions on whether or not to accept the 643 transcriptions from legacy SARs when recoding to RDA.

COMMENTER 3: Recommend to just accept the legacy transcription in the 643 field. This can just be accomplished through training. No need for policy statement.

COMMENTER 1 : This is about captions, which may change and change again over time; what matters for access is uniformity, not fidelity to the earliest form of caption. There’s no need to re-evaluate captions when re-evaluating SARs for RDA. Nothing will be gained in support of the FISO tasks (indeed split files will be created), and time will be lost that could be devoted to creating other, more useful authority data. Suggested alternative language (thanks to Jenifer Marquardt):

Series Numbering Practice in Existing Records. PCC practice: Generally accept the numbering practice recorded in the 642 field of an existing record. When upgrading an AACR2 series authority record to RDA or revising an existing RDA authority record do not change the numbering or caption practice unless it is clearly wrong. Do not revise the series numbering example merely to change caption choice. If there is an actual change from one numbering sequence to another numbering sequence, add an additional 642.

The only exception I’d make is for series numbering that has been established as Roman numerals under RDA. Assuming the recommendation below to substitute Arabic for Roman numerals in authorized access points is accepted, it will be worth the time to change these few.

See also proposed additional section to 24.6 below, under III.3d.

III.3. Series numbering issues

III.3a. Series numbering appears only in CIP data, on publisher’s website, etc. (Relating to Series authorized access point: MARC 800, 810, 811, 830)

37

Discussion

RDA 24.6. “Numbering of part” applies to numbering in Series authorized access points. RDA 24.6.1.2 allows the cataloger to take information on numbering of parts from any source. This policy seems justified for series authorized access points. For indexing purposes, it is important to have the correct series numbering for a monograph within the series recorded in 8XX. If series numbering happens to be found on a source outside the resource (e.g. a bibliography, or a listing in a later monograph in the series), then it should be included. However, there should not be any expectation or requirement that the cataloger look outside the resource for series information.

Recommendation


COMMENTER 1 : Agree.

As mentioned earlier--far too often, publishers assign, un-assign and re-assign series numbers so that what appears on their website at a particular time may not agree with what appeared on the publication at the time it was issued (or, for that matter, may not agree with what appeared on their website on a different day). Guidance in some form could be helpful.

COMMENTER 3: See PS 2.12.9.2 above for guidance.

III.3b. Series Numbering: Substitute prescribed abbreviations for different found abbreviations of captions (RDA B5.5 & RDA 24.6)

Discussion

RDA 24.6.1.3 calls for abbreviating terms used as part of the numbering as instructed in Appendix B 5.5). That Appendix in turn refers to B.7-B.10. In Appendix B.7, “v.” is given as the English abbreviation to be used for the English word “volume” or “volumes” in series authorized access points. However, no clear instruction is given with regard to substituting “v.” for other found abbreviations of “volume/s”, such as “vol.” Conversely, in French and Italian, the authorized abbreviation of “volume/s” is “vol.” There is no instruction in this case to substitute “vol.” where the abbreviation “v.” represents the French or Italian word volume (singular or plural). AACR2 B.5B did allow for all such substitutions, which are found frequently in series.

Everyone in the group was in favor of following such a substitution. However, there was a difference of opinion as to whether RDA indirectly authorizes such substitutions, and if not, whether the omission was deliberate by the JSC, or accidental.

One group member stated that terms in 24.6.1.3 and B.5.5 can be construed as encompassing variant abbreviations, based on the text at A.3.2 (Other Terms Associated with Titles of Works).

38

The exception for series under this instruction explicitly refers to “words and abbreviations”, implying that both are within the scope of “terms” in the instruction proper.

Recommendation

Add an LC-PCC statement to 24.6.1.3 clearly authorizing the substitution of abbreviations in Appendix B.7-B.10 for found variants of these abbreviations such as “vol”. for the English abbreviation “v.”, or “v.” for the French or Italian abbreviation “vol.”. Additionally, if this is the way PCC wants to go, it should propose a revision to RDA Appendix B, parallel to AACR2 B.5B1.

Related issue: If PCC proposes revisions to Appendix B: when the abbreviation “v.” in Appendix B was split into three parts, one for English, one for French, and one for Italian, no provision was made for other language versions of “volume.” Galician and Portuguese for example, use “volume.” Was it intended that this should not be abbreviated? Previous to the RDA revision they would have been abbreviated “v.”


LC-PCC PS 24.6.1.3. PCC practice: Abbreviate terms used as part of the numbering as instructed in Appendix B. Substitute one form of abbreviation with the prescribed abbreviation.

COMMENTER 3: Agree with this PS

Note: see expansion of this recommended PS under III.4.

UW: We agree that prescribed abbreviations should be used in place of found abbreviations in 8XXs. The problem is that Appendix B has a limited number of languages. A task group should review it and propose text in cases of significant omissions.

III.3c. Numbering in series authorized access points (800, 810, 811, 830): Substitute Arabic numerals for Roman or other numerals in series numbering in series authorized access points? (RDA 24.6 & 1.8).

Discussion

RDA 24.6 and the corresponding LC-PCC PS are concerned with series numbering in authorized access points. We are referred to RDA 1.8, the same instruction as is used for series numbering in series statements. If we follow the current policy, we are adhering to the RDA principle of Representation (0.4.3.4). We would also be having the same policy for series statements and series authorized access points, which should assist in training. But the paramount question is whether we are best serving the user by faithfully using Roman numerals in numbering in series authorized access points, or would they be better served by substituting Arabic numerals?

It is important that when series authorized access points display and index in catalogs, the series numbering displays in a logical arrangement (“v. 1”, “v. 2, v. 12, etc., or v. I, v. II, v. III, etc.) While we shouldn’t base our decisions solely upon unsophisticated system development, most

39

systems at the present time would probably have trouble properly sequencing issues in a series by numbering consisting of Roman numbers (or captions and Roman numerals). It is safe to say that paying additional money to systems developers to reprogram the numbering of series numbering will not be a high priority for institutions in the near- to mid-term future, given the costs of RDA implementation and the (probably much greater) costs of transitioning away from MARC 21.

Recommendation

Substitute Arabic numerals for non-Arabic in the access point (8XX of the bibliographic record, 642 of the authority record)


LC-PCC PS 24.6.1.3. PCC practice: Record numerals in series numbering as Arabic numerals. Abbreviate terms used as part of the numbering as instructed in Appendix B. Substitute one form of abbreviation with the prescribed abbreviation.

COMMENTER 3: LC-PCC PS 24.6.1.3. PCC practice: Record numerals in series numbering in the authorized access point as Arabic numerals. Abbreviate terms used as part of the numbering as instructed in Appendix B. Substitute one form of abbreviation with the prescribed abbreviation. If Appendix B does not provide an abbreviation in the language of the series, base the caption for the authorized access point on the form found on the resource; prefer the abbreviated form if the resource has both an abbreviated and spelled-out form.

COMMENTER 1 : I’m very happy to see this long-awaited instruction to substitute Arabic for Roman numerals in the 8XX.

SCS: The appendix seems inadequate for international collections. Possible alternative PS options:

a. If Appendix B does not provide an abbreviation in the language of the series, base the caption for the AAP on the form found on the resource; prefer the abbreviated form if the resource has both an abbreviated and spelled-out form. This corresponds to RDA already, with the added twist that if the resource has both an abbreviated and a full form, prefer the abbreviated form.

COMMENTER 1 : This is clear. I prefer it over b. and c. below.

Some (but not all) of the SCS membership also proposed:

40

b. If Appendix B does not provide an abbreviation in the language of the series, do not use a caption in the AAP.

c. Use the caption "v." for the AAP if Appendix B does not provide an abbreviation for the caption in the language of the series.

UW: We agree with the use of Arabic numerals in place of Roman numerals. Of the additional options proposed by SCS, we think a is okay, and do not accept b or c. There should be a fast track for proposing additions to Appendix B.

III.3d. Choice of form of series numbering in series authorized access point when resource offers multiple presentations (RDA 24.6)

Discussion

RDA 24.6.1.2 instructs to take information on series and subseries numbering from any source. For established series, one would use the form of numbering specified in the 642 field of the series authority record. However, for unestablished series, there’s nothing in RDA or LC PCC Ps specifically about the choice of captions and/or form of series numbering when they appear differently in different places within the resource.

Recommendation

Add a section to LC-PCC PS at 24.6, recommending that for unestablished series, to follow the same order of precedence given in RDA 2.6.2.2

UW: We agree with the recommendation. In addition to referring to RDA 2.6.2.2, we suggest including the preferred order directly in the policy statement.

Recommended policy statement [addition to LC-PCC PS 24.6]

LC-PCC PS 24.6 [new section letter]. Variant Numbering Patterns. PCC Practice: When recording the numbering practice in field 642 of the series authority record, if presentation of the series numbering differs in different parts of resources within a series, select the form found in the first or earliest issue or part available of the series according to the order of preference given in RDA 2.6.2.2, in the same source as that chosen for the title proper of the series. If different forms of numbering appear in that source, or no numbering is found in that source, record one of the presentations; generally prefer the fuller form (e.g., prefer a form with a caption over one without).

See also the proposed additional section to 24.6 above, under III.2. “Variant Numbering Patterns” should precede “Series Numbering Practice in Existing Records.”

41

SCS: This is similar to our recommendation under II.5.C. In addition SCS proposes another section for abbreviations.

LC-PCC PS 24.6 [new section letter]. Abbreviations.Per RDA 24.6.1.3, the number in access points is recorded, not transcribed, and is subject to the abbreviation guidelines in appendix B.5.5. (For example, if the numbering on the resource appears as “number 6” it is recorded in the access point as “no. 6”).

LC-PCC PS 24.6 [new section letter]. Variant Numbering Patterns. PCC Practice: When recording the numbering practice in field 642 of the series authority record, if the form of the series numbering differs in different parts of resources within a series, select the form found in the same source as that chosen for the title proper of the series. If different forms of numbering appear in that source, or no numbering is found in that source, prefer a form with a caption over one without.

COMMENTER 1 : Sounds good.

COMMENTER 3: Agree with the SCS text above

III.3e. Analyzed bibliographical resources with more than one issue of a series, nonconsecutive numbering.

Discussion

When a bibliographic record records consecutive issues of a series inclusive numbering can be used (“v. 1-5”). However, guidance is needed when the issues are not consecutive. An earlier practice under AACR2 of listing the first issue followed by “etc.” (“v. 10, etc.”) seems to be persisting, although listing of all the numbers was also a practice followed in NACO.

Recommendation

Do not use the “etc.” technique. List all the numbers, with non-consecutive sequences separated by commas.

Example:

Multipart comprises v.1-3, 5, 8-9 of monographic series:

490 1# $a Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 1-3, 5, 8-9

830 #0 $a Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 1-3, 5, 8-9.

Always use this technique in 490. Optionally, if considered important for indexing, give nonconsecutive numbers in separate 8XX fields instead of in a single 8XX field:

830 #0 $a Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 1-3.

830 #0 $a Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 5.

42

830 #0 $a Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 8-9.

COMMENTER 1 : I think this is a good idea.

SCS: SCS would like to see a suggested policy statement for this section.

UW: We agree with the recommendation to eliminate the use of “etc.”. We also would like to see a policy statement for this section. The technique of using multiple 8XX fields should be included as an option. Multiple headings are better for filing.

COMMENTER 3:LC-PCC PS 6.2.2.3. Nonconsecutive Numbering.If a series associated with a resource has multiple numbering, transcribe all numbers using commas or hyphens as appropriate, depending on whether the numbering is consecutive or not. Do not use the “etc.” technique.

490 0 Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 1-3, 5, 7, 9-10

LC-PCC PS 24.6 [New Section letter]. Nonconsecutive Numbering.If a series authorized access point associated with a resource has multiple numbering, record all numbers using commas or hyphens as appropriate, depending on whether the numbering is consecutive or not. Do not use the “etc.” technique.

830 0 Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 1-3, 5, 7, 9-10

Optionally, if considered important for indexing, give nonconsecutive numbers in separate 8XX fields instead of in a single 8XX field:

830 0 Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 1-3830 0 Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 5830 0 Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 7830 0 Controversial advances in Midwest serials librarianship ; $v v. 9-10

III.3f. Chronological Designation.

Discussion

Transcription. RDA 2.12.9.4 says that if the resource has both a numeric designation and a chronological designation, both are to be recorded. This is slightly different from AACR2 1.6G3, where including the chronological designation was optional. The LCRI to 1.6G3 said not to apply the option. This LCRI was not brought forward into the LC-PCC PSs, and in any case recording the chronological designation isn’t optional in RDA so according to RDA we are to record both the numeric designation and the chronological designation in the transcription (490).

43

Access point. Although not a part of the authorized access point, the numbering of the part is part of the access point in the bibliographic record (8XX) and its form does affect the indexing. Its form is governed by 24.6. According to 24.6.1.1, numbering of part includes both the numeral + caption and the chronological designation, if both are present. Then 24.6.1.3 says “Record the numbering of a part … as it appears”. Although there are no examples in RDA 24.6 showing both numbering and chronological designation, since the definition in 24.6.1.1 does include both we assume that 24.6 expects us to record both in the access point (8XX), if both are present. This represents a major change in practice.

Note: Judy Kuhagen says that in her experience, true chronological designation associated with series (as opposed to publication date) is extremely rare.

COMMENTER 1 : With analyzable issues of serials (other than monographic series), yearbooks/Jahresgabe and the like (i.e. 008/13= z in the SAR), it is the norm to have a true chronological designation eligible for 490 and 8XX, so people who catalog these do see it fairly often.

AACR2 practice (with LCRI):

On piece: Band 5 (2012)

490 1 [title] ; $v Bd. 5

830 0 [preferred title] ; $v Bd. 5.

RDA practice:

On piece: Band 5 (2012)

490 1 [title] ; $v Band 5 (2012)

830 0 [preferred title] ; $v Bd. 5 (2012)

Recommendation

Since this represents a major change in practice, this information certainly needs to be included in training materials. It may also warrant a policy statement, if only to give an example.

SCS: Agrees with this recommendation

COMMENTER 1 : I agree too. I think it would be helpful to have an example in documentation (and would be willing to find an actual one if asked).

NLM agrees that recording the chronological designation with the series would represent a major change in practice. We believe a policy statement would be useful. In addition, there would need to clear instructions for distinguishing a chronological designation from a publication date.

44

UW: RDA calls for using both numeric and chronological designation, and the Task Force and SCS agree with this practice. In addition to training materials, a policy is needed on upgrading SARs from AACR2 to RDA (even if we decide not to change numbering), and a policy for what to do with the next issue of a series, if the SAR is not upgraded. It seems a policy statement will be required for these reasons. It should also mention field 642 and what practice should be there.

COMMENTER 3:LC-PCC PS 24.6.1.3. Series numbering in access points.When upgrading SARs from AACR2 to RDA, do not change the numbering pattern in the 642 field, especially when the series has a chronological designation in addition to the numeric designation. Follow the established numbering pattern in access points for new bibliographic records as well, even if it does not agree with the transcription. Example:

490 1 Aperture $x 0003-6420 ; $v no. 211 (Summer 2013)830 0 Aperture (San Francisco, Calif.) ; $v no. 211. $x 0003-6420

For SARs being established for the first time under RDA, include both the numbering and chronology in the 642. Be certain not to confuse a chronological designation with a publishing date.

III.4. Conventional collective title “Works”: Best choice of qualifier? (RDA & LC-PCC PS 6.27.1.9)

See also discussion above I.5 on the conventional collective title “Works”.

Discussion

Given the large number of existing authority records for conventional collective titles beginning with “Works” in which the attribute of date was used to distinguish between authorized access points, is the date the most appropriate qualifier to choose first for this type of series authorized access point when encountering a conflict? If so, should the PCC say so?

There is currently no PS corresponding to LCRI 25.8/25.9 instructing catalogers to routinely add date to the collective conventional title.

In any case, are, in fact, existing authorized access points with “Works. [date]” RDA-acceptable? What does the date represent? Date of the work? Date of the expression? Date of the manifestation? Since these AACR2 headings were established using the date of publication (manifestation), even for reprints of pre-existing expressions, it would seem to be a date of manifestation. Is date of manifestation appropriate in an RDA authorized access point?

Recommendation

If PCC agrees with the task force’s recommendation under I.5, that the various iterations of the “complete works” aggregate should be treated as the same work, then there will never be a

45

conflict, and thus the question is moot (the preferred title “Works” would never be qualified; any qualifying would occur at the expression level), except for how to deal with the authorized access points already in the file.

Even if PCC does not agree, we don’t much care for the idea of prescribing a “most appropriate” qualifier. It’s best left up to cataloger’s judgment, depending upon the nature of the specific resource, and the conflict in the database. For works, only a few authors have more than one collection of works, so that there is no need to qualify. In fact, if anything, the group would like to discourage the use of date in most cases. It’s not a very helpful collocation device, especially when there are multiple manifestations of the work published at different times.

Do not change current policy (cataloger chooses the qualifier). If SCT/PoCo would like to make this explicit in a PS, it should be general to “Works”, not just to series.

UW: We can accept that all expressions of a complete work are a single work. The question is not entirely moot, however, because we need guidance on how to deal with authorized access points that already exist in the authority file, which the Task Force ignored.

There will be cases when expressions of a complete work need to be differentiated (e.g. Riverside Shakespeare and Oxford Shakespeare). Differentiation is then at the expression level, which affects coding and punctuation, e.g. “Works. $f date” rather than “Works (date)”. We need examples in training materials.

COMMENTER 3: See Issue 5 at the end of this document

III.5. Use of “Series-like phrase” as a qualifier in series authorized access points?

Discussion

Instead of using qualifier “(Series)”, when a series-like phrase is the same as the form of name of a person or corporate body, should we use “(Series-like phrase)” instead?

Recommendation

We do not recommend this at the present time.

There is some difference of opinion on this issue within the group. At least one group member thinks it would be useful for catalogers’ and other technical services personnel. Such records are unlikely to be seen or used by the public. On the other hand, explanatory text could be added elsewhere in the series authority record, or generated via fixed field information in the record.

Commenter 2: I would rather opt to use the qualifier “(Series-like phrase)” than series in SARs for such phrases. Since it has been agreed in I.3 that continuing to create SARs for series-like

46

phrases is a “practical” rather than a principle-based practice, why don’t we make them as unambiguous as possible for the staff members who use them?

COMMENTER 1 : SARs for series-like phrases already contain an identifying fixed field (008/12 = c) and an explanatory text (667 telling the cataloger what to do with the phrase). The absence of local treatment fields also is evident if one looks. Unfortunately, in today’s high-production/temporary staffing environments, such nuances are often overlooked or not included in training. When (Series) appears in the 1XX, the technician may automatically add (or accept) 490/830. Using the qualifier (Series-like phrase) makes the situation very obvious, and it also makes it easy to find/correct any of these that sneak into our databases as access points.

COMMENTER 3:Since “Series-like phrase” can be included in the 380 Form of Work, including it as a qualifier in the AAP is not necessary.

See also discussion above at I.3.

III.6. Variant access points

Discussion

Variant access points (RDA 6.27.4) are not core in RDA. The LC PCC PS for 6.27.4 illustrates situations where variant access points for series may be useful. Does the PCC want to require certain types of variant access points on series authority records?

Recommendation

Since various situations are given in the LC PCC PS, these could already be considered as PCC best practices. This may be sufficient. It might be useful to add an introductory statement, that it is advisable to minimally provide variant access points for a series whenever one would make them on a corresponding bibliographic record for the series cataloged as a serial, multipart monograph, or integrating resource.

COMMENTER 1 : “Corresponding bibliographic record”: If SARs are now to represent works or expressions, what is a corresponding bibliographic record? This is something that needs to be worked out, with input from CONSER.

UW: We think the wording should be more clear that this is talking about variant access points in SARs.

COMMENTER 3: the existing PS at 6.27.4 is sufficient as it allows for catalogers’ judgment.

III.7. 5XX See also references use of $w r $i or $4:

Discussion

47

For 5XX see also references from names of earlier/later series, does the PCC wish to endorse the use of $w r $i or $4 with relationship designations, rather than $w “a” and “b”? (Bridge p. 17; this question would apply to name authority records for corporate bodies as well).

$w “a” and “b” are insufficient for the variety of relationships involved. The April 2013 update of the DCM Z1 manual recommends using $i and $w r rather than “$w a and b” in series authority records.

Recommendation

Authorize this as PCC Practice.

[130] JSC-AACR2 series on cataloging conundrums

[530] $w r $i Continued by: $a JSC-RDA series on cataloging conundrums

Note: ILS vendors will need to be reminded that they will need to supply the reciprocal of the text in $i as output in their see also from references. The relationship designator in the 5XX field of the authority record is actually used to generate the reciprocal catalog reference:

JSC-RDA series on cataloging conundrums

Continues: JSC-AACR2 series on cataloging conundrums

SCS: Series should not be doing anything differently than the rest of the program, so we are deferring this recommendation to the work of the task group on using relationship designators in authority records. Currently this issue is one of the authority relationship designator comments/recommendations that have not yet been taken up by PoCo.

COMMENTER 1 : Because series can be represented by authority and/or bibliographic records (at least until further notice—see above), CONSER will need to have a say; currently I believe their practice is to continue to use $w a and b.

COMMENTER 3: Agree with SCS comments above.

IV. Miscellaneous Issues

IV.1. Use of field 373 or 381 on series authority records for recording associated group.

Discussion

A corporate body associated with the series as an aggregate work or expression has sometimes been recorded in field 381 as “other distinguishing characteristics” of the work or expression (corresponding to RDA 6.6 and 6.12). Would 373 be a better place for this information, so that

48

the same MARC 21 field would be used in name authority records and series authority records to record the name of an associated group?

Field 373 (“Associated Group”) is associated only with RDA 9.13 (“Affiliation”) in Appendix E.2.1. While the MARC 21 Authority Format does not explicitly restrict field 373 to authority records for persons, this restriction (or at least predominant use) is strongly implied in the instructions. However, documentation for many of the newer RDA fields in the MARC 21 Authority Format is out of date (most notably for field 372), so this is not definitive in itself.

Recommendation

Field 373 should be used for Associated group rather than field 381, in order to have consistent recording of this information across authority records of all types.


LC-PCC PS 6.6.1.3. PCC practice: Record Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work whenever it has been used as a qualifier in the authorized access point. Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work may also be recorded in cases where it has not been used as a qualifier. Record using controlled vocabulary if possible. Use the following fields to record Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work:

Corporate bodies or other groups associated with the work: 373 field

Any other distinguishing characteristic of the work: 381 field

See also LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3, 6.4.1.3, and 6.5.1.3 on Form of Work, Date of the Work, and Place of Origin of the Work, any of which might be used as a qualifier in an authorized access point.

LC-PCC PS 6.12.1.3. PCC practice: Record Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression whenever it has been used as a qualifier in the authorized access point. Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression may also be recorded in cases where it has not been used as a qualifier. Record using controlled vocabulary if possible. Use the following fields to record Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression:

Corporate bodies or other groups associated with the expression: 373 field

Any other distinguishing characteristic of the expression: 381 field

See also LC-PCC PS 6.9.1.3, 6.10.1.3, and 6.11.1.3 on Content Type, Date of the Expression, and Language of the Expression, any of which might be also used in an authorized access point.

SCS: Prefer using 373 instead of 381

COMMENTER 1 : Do you mean “381 instead of 373”? Or am I just confused

49

unless the task group first does a proposal to add 'associated group' to chapter 6. In most cases, you are really talking about a relationship (e.g., other PFCB associated with a work) rather than an associated group in the context that is being discussed here-- it really is an "Other distinguishing characteristic of a work" and muddying the waters isn't going to help. There isn’t much increased value in requiring the element when it is already in the access point in cases where it doesn't appear to represent a new data manipulation/searching/indexing aspect. 373 is for associating Group 2 entities with each other; 381 is for things dealing with Group 1 entities.

UW: We agree with SCS but note that the field names are reversed in its statement and should be: “Prefer using 381 instead of 373….” We think that using 373 would muddy the mapping from MARC to RDA and cause future problems.

COMMENTER 1 : Sounds right

NLM: There was disagreement internally at NLM regarding this issue. Some felt that corporate bodies associated with the work should be recorded in 373 to be in alignment with what is recorded in name authority records. Others felt that the relationship between a corporate body and a work is just that, a relationship, and should be recorded by linking the authority records through the use of 5XX fields. When the name of a corporate body is used as a qualifier in the authorized access point for the series, according to chapter 6 that is considered a distinguishing characteristic and should be recorded in its proper element 381. We do not understand the SCS comment that states “prefer using 373 instead of 381 unless the task group first does a proposal to add associated group to chapter 6.” Was this reversed and should state “prefer using 381 instead of 373” unless adding associated group as an element to chapter 6?

COMMENTER 3: Agree with the SCS assessment (except switch around 373 and 381)

IV.2. Recording publisher and place: 643 or 370 & 373?

Discussion

Should fields 370 and 373 be used to record data that is currently recorded in field 643, or should it be permissible to record it in all of these fields?

Field 643 is designed to accommodate data that would routinely be recorded in field 264 of the associated bibliographic records for the component parts of the series. For this reason, the field is repeatable as a whole, with the applicable component parts designated in subfield $d. Fields 370 and 373, on the other hand, are explicitly associated with the entity represented by the authority record, in this case the series. Field 370 has multiple uses, but the only one associated with a series (as an aggregate work) is the place of origin of the work (RDA 6.5.1 / 370 $g).

Recommendation


50

Because the purpose of each of these fields in MARC 21 is unique and mutually exclusive, we recommend against discontinuing 643 in favor of 370/373 in PCC series authority records. Whether or not to record the same information in both fields 643 $a and 370 $g should be left up to cataloger’s judgment, with one caveat: In the case of series published by a multinational publisher with offices in multiple places, we recommend not recording any of the places in the 370 field unless one of the places has been used as a qualifier in the authorized access point, or is particularly closely associated with the series as a work (see the proposed LC-PCC PS 6.5.1.3., above in I.3. Information recorded in 643 may be used to justify information recorded in 370, without further justification (e.g. in 670).


DCM Z1, 643. [the PCC practice in this whole section needs to be looked at]. [Add final paragraph:] Information about place of origin of the work and associated bodies (such as the publisher) may also be recorded using 370 and 373 fields.

COMMENTER 3: Continue using the 643 field. Only record the 370 when the place has been used as a qualifier in the authorized or variant access points. Associated bodies (such as publisher) should be recorded in the 381 field since the associated group element is not defined for works/expressions.

IV.3. Partial analysis of multipart monographs

Discussion

LC-PCC PS 2.1.3 presents LC/PCC practice regarding analysis in situations when a publication that is part of a classified-separately multipart monograph lacks a title other than that of the comprehensive title, or has a title that is dependent on the comprehensive title. We believe that PCC libraries can avoid this situation by instead classifying such a multipart monograph together as a collection. Is it also possible for a PCC library to choose to analyze such a multipart monograph partially to avoid having in our catalogs the sort of analytics called for by PS 2.1.3?

(Note that DCM Z1 for 644 shows an example of a non-analyzable serial becoming a monographic series, and addresses the situation when a later volume of the now-analyzed-in-full monographic series is not analyzable. It says there “consider creating an analytic record for the volume according to the guidelines in LCRI 13.3 instead of modifying the 644 field to indicate this fact.” This is not as prescriptive as PS 2.1.3 seems to be for analyzed-in-full series. Is the new PS moving away from flexibility about analysis? If so, is this what PCC intends?)

Recommendation

No action is needed. The Series Policy Group does not see the LC-PCC PS as restrictive, since it applies only when a library has decided to analyze a series in full or classify the parts of a multipart monograph separately. It is meant to address the resulting problem for analysis. It does not apply if a library decides to stop or suspend analyzing in full or classifying separately.

51

COMMENTER 1 : Agree

UW: We agree with the recommendation to use option 3.

COMMENTER 3: Agree that no action is needed

IV.4a. Collected set records: Required or not?

Discussion

Should the PCC state somewhere whether or not a comprehensive (collected set) record is required whenever a PCC library decides to class together a multipart monograph? It seems that a comprehensive description enables the cataloger to correlate the LC call number chosen with a subject heading (except some cases where the call number is from Class A).

Recommendation

The PCC document should explicitly state that it’s optional, though recommended, to create such a record (perhaps in the DCM Z1 Series introduction).

Recommended Policy Statement

DCM Z1 - Introduction - Series authority records . [add as second paragraph after “PCC Series Practice: Transcription of the series statement …”] Creation of series authority records is optional for PCC-NACO libraries, but any series that is traced in a PCC-BIBCO bibliographic record (8XX field) must be supported by a series authority record. For record-keeping purposes, it is recommended that series authority records be created whenever a PCC library decides to class together a numbered series or multipart monograph, whether or not the series is traced in bibliographic records.

SCS: The recommended PS does not seem to adequately address the recommendation. Perhaps: "While tracing of series is optional for PCC-NACO libraries, any series that is traced in a PCC-BIBCO bibliographic record (8XX field) must be supported by a series authority record. Even when a series is not being traced, it is recommended for record-keeping purposes that a series authority record be created if a PCC library decides to class together a numbered series or multipart monograph." This is recommended only, not required. If a library feels it is valuable enough for themselves, they'll do it; otherwise they won't.

COMMENTER 1 : First sentence: yes, if it’s not already there. Second sentence: I agree with SCS that this is a local issue, and nothing needs to be said

NLM: In regards to the comments from the SCS, NLM does not see the need to create series authority records for serials and/or multipart monographs which are not analyzed. As was stated earlier in the report, even if the statement says recommended rather than required, many PCC libraries interpret recommendations to be more than just recommended.

52

COMMENTER 3: agree with other commentators that nothing needs to be said.

IV.4b. Analyzed multiparts classed as a collection: Is it necessary to create series authority records? (NACO FAQ on Series #9 and DCM Z1 section: Should a series authority record be made?)

Discussion

In cases in which a multipart monograph is analyzed and classed as a collection, the pre-RDA instructions said that the series authority record was “optional for PCC (unless BIBCO full record).” Is this still PCC policy? (The NACO FAQ on series #9 at http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/naco/series/seriesfaq.html states: “What is the PCC policy for series authority records as of Aug. 22, 2008? PCC members exercising the option to continue tracing series in bibliographic records must continue searching the LC/NACO Authority File for authorized forms of series, creating or revising records as necessary. PCC members who do not trace series may limit themselves to transcribing series statements in a BIBCO record in a 490 field.”

Recommendation

This already seems to be the basic PCC policy about series. NACO catalogers should create series authority records if they trace a series (8XX) in a BIBCO record, if the series authority record does not already exist.


See above under IV.4a

COMMENTER 3: Policy statement not needed.

IV.4c. Analyzed/classed separately multiparts: Need to create series authority records?

Discussion

In cases in which a multipart monograph is analyzed and classed separately, the pre-RDA instructions said that the series authority record was “optional for PCC (unless BIBCO full record).” Is this still PCC policy?

Recommendation

The policy should be the same as for IV.4a and IV.4b.

COMMENTER 3: Policy statement not needed.

IV.5. Unnumbered multiparts: Condensing series authority records created before Dec. 2002?

53

http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/naco/series/seriesfaq.html

Discussion

LC/PCC policy prior to Dec. 2002 for unnumbered multipart items was to create as many series authority records as there were major changes. The latest instruction under AACR2 was “don’t condense series authority records created before Dec. 2002.” What is policy decision when evaluating AACR2 series authority records for use under RDA?

This is a case where there is no requirement to align the series authority records with corresponding serial bibliographic records (since unnumbered series cannot, at least in theory, be cataloged as a unit). So the series authority records exist only in the context of the bibliographic records for the component parts. The policy a decade ago under AACR2 was to let sleeping dogs lie, and it is hard to find a compelling reason to wake them at this late date. The switch to RDA does not in itself seem a compelling reason, representing more a change in name than content. RDA probably has more in common with the 2002 revision of AACR2 than that revision had with earlier versions of the code, so the transition to a “new” cataloging code fails as an argument. Of the making of such revisions there is no end, and they will not significantly save the time of the library user.

Recommendation

The group had a difference of opinion here.

1. Do not consolidate series authority records for unnumbered series created prior to December 2002, even if they would be considered to represent the same entity aggregate work under RDA.

2. Leave it to cataloger’s judgment, if appropriate.

SCS: We opt for (2) being policy, with (1) being recommended. Note: it has not been a common practice in the LC/ALA/PCC environment, but it is entirely possible to catalog unnumbered series collectively. RDA supports doing so, and ISSN centers and other institutions in fact do so.

COMMENTER 1 : SCS option sounds good to me.

COMMENTER 3: Agree with SCS

IV.6. Handling of an existing name authority record that would otherwise duplicate a proposed series authority record.

Discussion

If the cataloger discovers an existing name authority record that would otherwise duplicate a proposed series authority record, earlier policy was to (a) cancel the name authority record and create a new series authority record or (b) revise or amend the existing name authority record to become a series authority record. Should this policy be continued?

54

This is a much bigger problem than the question (and previous NACO practice) implies. The problem is that in most cases a series can -- legitimately -- either be treated as a series or as a non-series aggregate work (e.g. on a collected set record). Either way it’s the same work, but how the cataloger chooses to view it will make a big difference. This often happens with “works” aggregates, where a library might legitimately want either to catalog it all on one record (aggregate work) OR to catalog the separate volumes separately (in which case the aggregate is a series).

COMMENTER 1 : Form of work is inherent to the work; it is not dependent upon a cataloger’s decision (I cannot change the form of a work by deciding to treat it one way rather than another). RDA in the MARC environment forces us to distinguish between “series treatment” and “series.” Series treatment may or may not be applied, according to local preference, but a work either has a certain form or it does not. That is why it is important to distinguish between monographic series (where Form of work = series, because the definition of series is met for every constituent part), and the other types of works that don’t meet the definition (because not all parts are analyzable) though they may get 490/8XX treatment in MARC (and part/whole treatment outside of MARC), depending upon local preferences.

An example is found in a set of records in OCLC. OCLC 856191298 is a collected set record for an edition of Sallust’s works. This record contemplates recording all the volumes in the set on one record. OCLC 865167030 has taken the same set and cataloged one of the volumes on a separate record, contemplating that other volumes would also be cataloged on their own records. In the latter case, the authorized access point for the aggregation has been established as a pair of series records (because the resource consists of bilingual expressions), no2014000817 and no2014000818. These “Works” authorized access points also represent the expressions in 856191298, the collected set record, but cannot be used under current policy in that record (e.g. in 700 fields) because the NARs have been coded as series.

COMMENTER 1 : Series authorized access points can be used in 7XX fields and 6XX fields as well as in 8XXs, depending upon the situation and the relationship being described. I don’t know what “current policy” the author is referring to that would forbid it.

The former NACO policy essentially said “These are always series and so if a previous cataloger has made a mistake and made the authority record as though it were for a uniform title [under AACR2], convert it to a series authority record.” This is not really appropriate and there should be some way to accommodate both legitimate practices. (The problem that happens in many institutions is that the aggregate entity may have been treated as a non-series work, but the authority record is for a series so the authorized access point won’t authorize in 1XX/240 or 7XX; or sometimes vice versa when we want to treat it as a series but the name authority record is for a “regular” work, not a series.). In either case it’s the same work, the only difference is the cataloger’s point of view. Could we accommodate both needs by always qualifying with “(Series)” when we’re treating it as a series and not having that qualifier when treating it as a “regular” authorized access point for a work (there might be a need for some other qualifier,

55

depending on conflict)? That is, two authority records, depending on the treatment. That would make two authority records and two authorized access points for a single work so theoretically it’s bad, but it might be a practical solution.

In summary:

Option 1: Always revise or amend the existing name authority record to treat it as a series. This would eliminate time and labor associated with canceling the existing name authority record. But it eliminates the choice of another library to treat the work as an name authority record rather than a series authority record.

Option 2: Create an additional authority record, one qualified by “Series”. Libraries that prefer to treat the aggregate work as a series would use this authority record. This solution would depart from the principle that individual entities should not have multiple descriptions. A possibility would be to allow a relationship designator meaning “identical entity” to link records using 5XX fields. This would be similar to VIAF, which contains multiple descriptions of identical entities. However, this has never been followed within the LC/NACO Authority File.

The task group is uncomfortable recommending either of these. Option 1 locks libraries into only one possibility, considering the work a series. Option 2 violates the FRBR and RDA principle that a single entity should be recorded using a single description.

Option 3. Revise policy to allow a single authority record to be used to authorize either “name” authorized access points (1XX/240 or 7XX) or series authorized access points (8XX). This does not in fact require a MARC revision, since it is currently possible to code an authority record as both valid for series and for “name;” but it would require a change in practice. In this case, since the same authorized access point for the work would be used whether the agency treats the set as a series or a collected set, the use of “Series” as a qualifier (if needed to distinguish) should be discouraged.

COMMENTER 1 : I agree that “Series” should not be used as a qualifier for the authorized access point for a collected set (multipart monograph). One of my reasons for thinking so has been exactly this—the variety of possible local treatments means that, for these materials, one person’s “series” is not necessarily another person’s.

Recommendation:

The task group recommends option 3. This requires no change in coding of authority records or even any change to “heading control” systems such as OCLC’s, but does require a change in publicized practice to explicitly allow libraries to use authority records coded as valid for series as “name” authority records (i.e. to authorize access points in 1XX/240 or 7XX fields). This information should be incorporated into training materials, and possibly also into the policy statements (probably DCM Z1). If this recommendation is accepted, the use of “(Series)” as a qualifier should be discouraged for the authorized access point for series that could be treated

56

as collected sets; and catalogers would continue the practice of recoding the series-related fixed fields to “appropriate for series” when a library chooses to use authorized access point for a work as a series access point, if it has not yet been so coded. This recoding would not affect other libraries’ treating the authorized access point as for a non-series work.

SCS: Agrees with this recommendation.

COMMENTER 1 : Me too

COMMENTER 3: Agree with this as well

IV.7. Series-like phrases

IV.7a. Creating series authority records for series-like phrases (LC-PCC PS 2.12)

Discussion

Should NACO catalogers continue to create series authority records for series-like phrases? The concept of “Series-like phrases” is not defined in AACR2 or RDA. The LC-PCC PS for RDA 2.12 has a section on “Series or phrase”, essentially carried over from LCRI 1.6.

Recommendation

We recommend that catalogers continue to create series authority records for series-like phrases whenever in their judgment such a series authority record can be useful. Often, the cataloger has put some effort into the determination, or variants need to be recorded. In both cases (and others), series authority records for the series-like phrase will be helpful.

COMMENTER 1 : Agree

Further action: The Series policy group needs to review the criteria for defining series-like phrase, and consider new ones as well.

IV.7b. Series authority coding for Series-like phrases: 008/16 - Heading use-series added entry. Should series like phrases be coded as “b”?

Discussion

It seems contradictory that in byte 12 we are coding the authority record to say that “1XX field contains a phrase that is not being used as a series in a bibliographic record” and then in byte 16 we say “1XX field contains a heading for a monographic series, a multipart item, an occasionally analyzable serial item, or a series-like phrase that is appropriate for use as a series added entry in a bibliographic record, regardless of whether the series is actually traced.”

So it is appropriate for use, but it is not being used? Would “b” in byte 16 for series-like phrases be more appropriate? Isn’t the point of a series-like phrase that we have determined that it isn’t a series, and therefore fits the definition of “b” in byte 16? While such a change in coding might

57

be desirable, it would most likely take a request to SCS & NDMSO to revise the MARC 21 definition. The sticking point is that the series-like phrase appears in a 1XX field, defined as a heading field.

Recommendation

Do not change the 008/16 coding for coding of series-like phrases. Pursue an alternative approach: Ask OCLC and system vendors to add validation software for the MARC 21 authority field 008/12: Type of series. Whenever the 008/12 has value “c” (Series-like phrase), then any Series 8XX bibliographic field containing that series-like phrase should fail validation.

Proposed OCLC policy change:

OCLC- Series authority coding for Series-like phrases: 008/16Recommendation: Request OCLC to refine its "Control headings software", as follows: When the "control headings" function is used to control series fields 800, 810, 811, or 830, it should only control the series authorized access point whenever there also exists a corresponding series authority record, and the authority fixed field byte 008/12 "Type of series" has value "a", "b", or "z". If it has value "c", "series-like phrase," then the heading will not be controlled. It would be helpful if the following message (or a similar one) also appears: "This heading is identical to a series-like phrase."

SCS: Agree with this recommendation. Note: OCLC already uses the value “c” for series-like phrase. Controlling of “series-like phrases” had been an issue in OCLC until recently, but it now appears to be fixed.

COMMENTER 1 : Sounds good

COMMENTER 3: No action needed

IV.8. Series that change from Print to Online (or vice versa):

IV.8a. Series originally in print and online. Differentiating an online resource that continues print (or other tangible format)

Discussion

Is it necessary to differentiate an online series that continues a print (or other tangible format)? If so, what would be the best way to differentiate them? According to current RDA/LC PCC PS, we can still use carrier type as a qualifier as necessary to distinguish series (see LC PCC PS 24.6, H. One or Several Series Authorized Access Points, Different carrier/media types). But at the May 2013 OpCo Meetings, it was announced that all 130s would be removed from serial records that have the qualifiers “print” or “online”, because they are manifestation level elements.

Example:

58

The document being cataloged:

http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/drds335entire.p df

There are two series authority records, each with its own ISSN:

no2005044945 DOC research & development series

no2007139248 DOC research & development series (Online)

The series was once issued in both print and online (PDF), but it has now moved to PDF only. Which record should be retained? What about the ISSNs?

Recommendation

RDA does not forbid identifying a manifestation through an access point, it’s just that there aren’t any instructions for how to do it (i.e., no instructions in chapter 2 corresponding to 6.27-31 in chapter 6). But since the online and print versions are the same work, and the same expression, they should have the same authorized access point. There are other elements in the records that can assist in differentiating the manifestations, rather than the authorized access points (Content type, etc.).

CONSER practice is to show the relationship between the print and online manifestations by explicitly linking them via reciprocal linking entry fields (760-787), and by providing LC and OCLC control numbers in subfield $w.

COMMENTER 1 : CONSER Cataloging Manual, Revised Module 31, towards the end. Applies to monographic series and other analyzable serials; I don’t know if multipart monographs might be different.

No action is necessary. Training materials need to emphasize that print and online share the same work and/or expression-level authorized access points.

SCS: We are in agreement that no action is necessary. Perhaps a few more examples of the types of records you want to collapse, to help people understand whether they see this as good or bad.

UW: SCS comments that no action is necessary: we need instructions on what to do to collapse these records into one, including how to record the 022 field when the print and online have separate ISSNs. Also consideration should be given to BFM in BIBCO records when the records are collapsed.

COMMENTER 3: No policy statement is needed. However, training on how to collapse existing SARs should be developed. We suggest using the print ISSN in the 022 and adding the e-ISSN in a 667 note. Example:

667 e-ISSN: 1234-5678

59

http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/drds335entire.p

IV.8b. Series originally in print and online: Switch to online only. Cancel one of the records? Which one?

Discussion

Related to the above, there are some series that exist in both print and online versions, for which separate series authority records have been made. If at some point the series becomes online only, should one of the series authority records be deleted. If so, which one?

Recommendation

One of the series authority records should be deleted. It doesn’t matter which one. Any format qualifier should be removed from the authorized access point.


DCM Z1 Introduction – How Many SARs Should be Made?: [New no.] 9.

How many authority records are made if a series exists in two or more versions of the same expression (print and online, etc.)?

Only one SAR should be made. If multiple SARs have already been made, delete one of the SARs. Any format qualifier (such as “online”) should be removed from the authorized access point for the remaining record.

UW: The recommended policy statement should address recording both ISSNs in the remaining record after one is deleted.

SCS: Outstanding issue #1 at end of document

COMMENTER 3: Agree to collapse SARs. Add the e-ISSN in a note.

IV.8c. Series with both print and online manifestations. One series authority record, but 2 ISSNs.

Discussion

Some series with both print and online manifestations have two ISSNs, but only 1 series authority record. Can both ISSNs be recorded on the series authority record? If so, where? It is not allowed to repeat $a of field 022, yet both ISSNs would be useful for retrieval.

Recommendation

Although 022 $a is not repeatable in the MARC 21 Authorities format, the entire 022 field is repeatable, which is surely more desirable. Field 022 could be repeated, so that there would be an ISSN relating to the print as well as one relating to the online version (and additional 022s for any other versions). While qualification of the ISSNs would be useful, this idea was discussed at the 2013 ALA Midwinter MARBI Meeting, and rejected. However, the cataloger could use a 667 note to identify which ISSN is for the print manifestation, and which for the online.

60


DCM Z1, 022. [add as paragraph before the paragraph about series-like phrase] If more than one ISSN is associated with a series (e.g., for print and online), record them in separate 022 fields.

COMMENTER 1 : This has possibilities

NLM: As a library continuing to follow the single-record approach, NLM agrees with using multiple ISSNs in the series authority record. NLM would like to take this a step further and suggest that the MARC proposal to allow qualification of ISSNs be revisited. What was the justification for the rejection?

COMMENTER 3: The ISSN Center does not agree with repeating the 022 in SARs (or bibliographic records for that matter). We would like to remain consistent and put the e-ISSN in a 667 field.

IV.9. Numbered/Unnumbered Series

Discussion

Should we continue to consider numbered and unnumbered versions of the same series to be different series?

Under AACR2 LC rule interpretations when a series either ceased or began numbering this was considered a major change triggering the creation of a new series. The new series was given a qualifier (Unnumbered) or rarely (Numbered).

In an RDA/FRBR environment qualifiers like this should be used to differentiate between different works with the same title. Does a change involving the presence or absence of numbering create different works? RDA 1.6 covers changes requiring a new description. In the case of multipart monographs, a change in mode of issuance or media type triggers a new description. Addition or deletion of numbering does not trigger a new description. For serials, changes in mode of issuance or media type, major changes in title proper, certain changes in responsibility, and change in edition statement trigger a new description. Again, addition or deletion of numbering does not. For RDA a change in numbering does not create a new and different work.

In most cases neither publishers nor library users consider beginning or discontinuing numbering to mean that they are dealing with different series.

Recommendation

Discontinue the practice of distinguishing between unnumbered and numbered versions of the same series. They are the same work and should use the same authorized access point. When encountered and upgrading to RDA, combine existing authority records.

61

COMMENTER 1 : I haven’t seen enough examples to have an opinion

Commenter 2 : This issue warrants a wider discussion before we go forward and begin combining SARs for numbered and unnumbered series. This may be a theory-based change that could very well create practical obstacles for collection development and acquisitions staff, and therefore for library users. For those libraries that maintain standing orders for numbered series and record receipts in MARC holdings records, differentiating between numbered and unnumbered series has great practical value. I advocate for a discussion about the implications of this change—perhaps by means of a survey that CONSER Operations Committee members send to their acquisitions departments, or a survey sent to lists directed at library acquisitions staff.

COMMENTER 3: Ask Les if Commenter 2l’s suggestions are feasible.

IV.10. Series. Subseries when Series appears not to exist independently.

Discussion

RDA 6.27.2.2, serials and integrating resources exception, reads “If the part is a section of, or supplement to, a serial or an integrating resource, whether the title of the section or supplement is distinctive or not, construct the authorized access point representing the part by combining (in this order):

a) the authorized access point representing the work as a whole

b) the preferred title for the section or supplement

This RDA instruction seems to contemplate considering (and constructing) the authorized access point representing the work as a whole before combining it with the preferred title for the section/supplement. This would include any necessary additions to the authorized access point representing the work as a whole under RDA 6.27.1.9.

LC-PCC PS 6.27.1.9 Serials subsection 8 reads: Serial common title not issued alone or lacking numbering. Do not test such a serial common title for conflict by itself. Test the entire title proper (the serial common title and its section) for conflict. If the entire title proper conflicts with another title proper, add a qualifier in the authorized access point.

This policy statement appears to violate the instruction in RDA 6.27.2.2. Is it a principled policy? Does it make sense in the LC/NACO authority file, particularly regarding series where the main series title appears not to exist separately from a subseries title? As we engage in updating AACR2 series authority records to RDA it is important to resolve this question.

LC-PCC PS 6.27.1.9 Serials subsection 8 is longstanding policy, but it is sound? If we have a title “Bulletin. Series W” isn’t a likely question going to be “Which bulletin?”? Is the current policy as

62

helpful to users of the database as a policy requiring testing the main title for uniqueness would be?

There are some problems caused by the application of this policy that readily appear in an examination of the authority file. (Similar problems would no doubt appear in an examination of the bibliographic file.)

There is a series titled Professional development (n 42019817). There is a completely unrelated set of subseries that add a subseries title to the main series title Professional development:

Professional development (n 42019817) [a series produced by the National Council of States on Inservice Education]

Professional development. Art (no2013016667)

Professional development. Librarians (no2012114301)

Professional development. Sign language (no2013007026)

These last three are all produced by Cerebellum Corporation of San Francisco. Yet there is no clue to the library user that these subseries are related to each other but not to the series “Professional development”. It would be a reasonable inference that the subseries are related to “Professional development” and users interested in the subseries might needlessly spend time looking through what appears to be the main series for related materials.

There are hundreds of series with the preferred title “Report”, e.g.

Report (Australia. Parliament. Senate) (n 2003145424)

Report (American Geological Institute) (no2006051291)

In addition there are a few subseries dependent on a main series title “Report” not qualified by virtue of LC-PCC PS 6.27.1.9:

Report. B (n 83744231)

Report. B (Helsingin yliopisto. Kehitysmaainstituutti) (n 84708938)

Report. Div. A., Physical oceanography (n 83715169)

Report. EI (n 42031920)

Report. EP (n 86742148)

Report. ER (n 86742149)

Report. Research report (n 83701516)

63

Also established is the following, apparently either not following the policy statement, or because the main series exists independently of the subseries:

Report (Metsahovi Radio Research Station (Teknillinen Korkeakoulu). Series A (n 91114075)

Similarly, under the main series “Bulletin” we have some subseries established without qualifier to the main series, and others established with a qualifier to the main series, correctly according to the policy statement, because the main series exists independently:

Bulletin (Auckland University College) (n 84714423)

Bulletin (Auckland University College). English series (n 84721438)

Bulletin (Auckland University College). Geography series (no2007037348)

Bulletin. Biologie (no 89011488)

Bulletin. Series H (no2006039281)

Bulletin (University of Arizona) (n 42708009)

Bulletin (University of Arizona). Humanities bulletin (no2004057446)

Bulletin (University of Auckland) (n 94015470)

Bulletin (University of Auckland). Economic history series (nr2002000168)

Bulletin (University of Auckland). English series (n 94015343)

Bulletin (University of Auckland). Library series (no2005087237)

This must be very puzzling to users. Why are most series titled “Report” or “Bulletin” qualified but a few are not? Why is the main series qualified in some cases for subseries but in others not? Is there a principled reason that would be evident to users? Is the happenstance that these “Report” and “Bulletin” series happened to be accompanied by a subseries title (and the main series did not exist independently) a principled reason?

The case of “Report. B” shows another result of the policy statement that might seem absurd to our users: in this case the entire preferred name did conflict with the preferred name of another series, so it needed to be qualified—after the subseries title “B”. Might it not make more sense to qualify them all at the main series level, parallel to the treatment of the hundreds of other series called “Report”?

Report (University of Pretoria. Bureau of Financial Analysis). B

Report (Helsingin yliopisto. Kehitysmaainstituutti). B

64

Report (Universitetet i Bergen. Geofysisk institutt). Div. A., Physical oceanography

Report (Canada. Energy, Mines and Resources Canada). EI

Report (Canada. Energy, Mines and Resources Canada). EP

Report (Canada. Energy, Mines and Resources Canada). ER

Report (Connecticut. Department of Higher Education). Research report

This would also collocate the other related “Report” subseries, if any (e.g. there are in fact an A, C, etc. report for the University of Pretoria series, although they have been established under an Afrikaans title).

One of the task group members said he believed there would be significant resistance from the serials community if this PS were changed. That certainly needs to be taken into consideration, weighed against the merits of the PS. If a general change to the policy is not possible because of opposition from the serials community, would it be possible to apply an exception to the PS to series, or to access points that need to be established in the authority file, leaving the bulk of serials under the current PS?

Commenter 2l: The amount of work involved in changing our approach to such series (and their associated serial records and analytic records) would be significant (and could be enormous—can we estimate how many records would be involved?). I understand the concern about the problematic browse indexes our current approach create, but do we have a well-developed sense of how often library users find them to be confusing? Is this such a large and serious problem it is worth the amount of work it would take to change a significant number of records? I’m not sure what sort of appetite there is at the majority of PCC institutions for recataloging series when the outcome will be new text strings that are no less unique than the former ones. Is this a question that could be postponed for consideration as a later phase of RDA implementation (it might be less worthy of investment in a linked data environment)?

COMMENTER 1 : I wish the Task Force had talked with Les and Hien and/or posted on the CONSRList to see what serials catalogers actually would say, and why. Some may respond during this comment period, but this report is long and people are busy. Dialog with the serials community is essential in matters like this, so if it doesn’t occur on its own it must be pursued.

Regarding the above recommendation, I’m not sure. I want to know the reason for the previous practice.

Recommendation

65

Discontinue the practice embodied in LC-PCC PS 6.27.1.9. Do test the preferred title of the main serial (common title) for conflict, even if it does not stand alone. Optionally, create an authority record for the main serial. If it is not acceptable to apply this to all serials, apply to series, or all serials/series that are established in the LC/NACO authority file.


Delete LC-PCC PS 6.27.1.9. Serials. Subsection 8. Or revise to read:

Serial common title not issued alone or lacking numbering. Test such a serial common title for conflict by itself. If necessary, qualify the serial common title. When the serial common title is for a series, optionally create an authority record for the main series.

SCS: The rationale would be not so much to differentiate, but rather to aid in identification. We are in agreement with the recommendation, but it's a pretty complicated situation. Does the recommendation result in series authority records being constructed differently from serial bib records?

COMMENTER 1 :That could indeed be a problem.

NLM: We agree with the SCS that we want the rules for determining the authorized access points for series and serials be consistent. There was internal disagreement over the usefulness to the user of differentiating the main titles versus consistency and possibly changing the rules for determining the title for serials.

UW: We agree with the recommendation to qualify the serial common title. When upgrading to RDA, this will require changing serial and monographic records in some cases.

COMMENTER 3: Les should be consulted on this. We do not want AAPs in series and serial records to be out of sync. If the serials community does not want to change the PS, could we make an addition to it so the common title with qualifier is included as a variant access point in the SAR?

Appendix I. Proposed Policy Statements

COMMENTER 1 : My comments on these appear on the preceding pages where the recommendations are introduced. (There are no more below.)

DCM

DCM Z1 - Introduction - Series authority records . [add as second paragraph after “PCC Series Practice: Transcription of the series statement …”] Creation of series authority records is optional for PCC-NACO libraries, but any series that is traced in a PCC-BIBCO bibliographic record (8XX field) must be supported by a series authority record. For record -keeping purposes, it is recommended that series authority records be created whenever a PCC library decides to class

66

together a numbered series or multipart monograph, whether or not the series is traced in bibliographic records.

SCS: The recommended PS does not seem to adequately address the recommendation. Perhaps: "While tracing of series is optional for PCC-NACO libraries, any series that is traced in a PCC-BIBCO bibliographic record (8XX field) must be supported by a series authority record. Even when a series is not being traced, it is recommended that a series authority record be created if a PCC library decides to class together a numbered series or multipart monograph." This is recommended only, not required. If a library feels it is valuable enough for themselves, they'll do it; otherwise they won't.

DCM Z1 - Introduction - Series authority records . Catalogers should do their best not to mix FRBR entities on the same series authority record. Elements that are specifically expression-related should not be added into work records and work-related elements should not be added into expression records (this specifically applies to type of work (380), language of expression (377), and content type (336)).

DCM Z1 Introduction - Series Authority Records. Record any attribute used as a qualifier in an authorized access point both in the authorized access point and as a separate element (using fields 046/36/368-386). Recording attributes in other situations is strongly encouraged.

UW: Change 386 to 388, as that is the newest MARC 38X field.

DCM Z1 Introduction – How Many SARs Should be Made?: [New no.] 9.

How many authority records are made if a series exists in two or more versions of the same expression (print and online, etc.)?

Only one SAR should be made. If multiple SARs have already been made, delete one of the SARs. Any format qualifier (such as “online”) should be removed from the authorized access point for the remaining record.

SCS: See Outstanding Issues at end of this document

DCM Z1, 022. [add as paragraph before the paragraph about series-like phrase] If more than one ISSN is associated with a series (e.g., for print and online), record them in separate 022 fields.

SCS: See Outstanding Issues at end of this document

DCM Z1, 643. [the PCC practice in this whole section needs to be looked at]. [Add final paragraph:] Information about place of origin of the work and associated bodies (such as the publisher) may also be recorded using 370 and 373 fields.

LC-PCC PS

67

LC-PCC PS 2.1.2.3. Series. PCC practice. When upgrading an AACR2 series authority record to RDA or revising an existing RDA authority record, change the preferred title only if strong evidence exists to change it (e.g., the cataloger has evidence from an earlier part than the part that was the basis for identification when the series was originally established, and the change does not constitute a major change). Do not revise the preferred title in the absence of such evidence. On series numbering practice, see also LC-PCC PS 24.6.

SCS: It is inappropriate to be talking about “preferred titles” in a Chapter 2 (2.1.2.3) Policy Statement; this needs to be moved to Chapter 6.

LC-PCC PS 2.3.1.7. PCC practice: When transcribing the series statement, if main series title is not present on the preferred source, transcribe part number and part title without the main series title, even if the main title is known.

EXAMPLE

490 $a Serie G, Estudios doctrinales

SCS: (OBE) 2.3.1.7 was just changed due to 6JSC/CCC/11—the proposed practice above is really just re-stating the instruction and no longer seems necessary.

LC-PCC PS 2.12.1.2. Sources. PCC practice: Do not transcribe a series statement (in 490) that is not formally presented, such as a statement that is embedded in the main text of the resource (e.g., in the preface). If recording information about a series statement not presented formally is considered important for identification or access, use a note.

SCS disagrees with the recommendation and feels that we can put the series in the 490 field with brackets as needed, and an explanatory note as to source of series in the 500 field if desired.

LC-PCC PS 2.12.3.3. PCC practice: If the Title Proper of Series is not in English and there is a parallel title in English, record the English parallel title. Other parallel titles proper of the series may be recorded at the discretion of the cataloger.

LC-PCC PS 2.12.9. PCC practice: When transcribing the series statement, if presentation of the series numbering differs within the resource, select the form found in the same source as that chosen for the title proper of the series. If different forms of numbering appear in that source, or no numbering is found in that source, record one of the presentations; generally prefer a form with a caption over one without.

SCS rewording: LC-PCC PS 2.12.9. PCC practice: When transcribing the numbering within the series, if the form of the series numbering differs within the resource, select the form found in the same source as that chosen for the title proper of the series. If different forms of

68

numbering appear in that source, or no numbering is found in that source, prefer a form with a caption over one without.

SCS proposes: LC-PCC PS for RDA 1.12.9.2 (Sources of Information). In some instances, series numbering may be lacking on the resource, or may appear only in the CIP data block, but other evidence of the numbering exists (e.g., numbers on other volumes, numbering on the publisher website, etc.). When supported by such evidence, series numbers may be recorded, supplied and enclosed within brackets, per RDA 2.2.4.

LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3. PCC practice: Record form of work in all work-level series authority records using the 380 field. At a minimum in all series authority records, include


Recording form of work for the type of series is also strongly encouraged:

380 $a Series (Publications) $a Monographic series $2 lcsh

or



(Multipart monograph series require two 380 fields because “Multipart monographs” is not currently in LCSH)

Additional forms may also be recorded as appropriate (e.g. Plays, Poems, Novels. LCSH and LCGFT are good sources, but the Art and Architecture Thesaurus sometimes has better form terms than LCSH does, e.g. “Poems” vs. “Poetry”).



SCS agrees with this Policy Statement

NLM: Since NLM does not use LCSH we do not want to be required to add a 380 field with LCSH to series authority records. We do not have an equivalent term for the concept of a series in MeSH, so we believe the addition of this information should be optional.

SEE PCCLIST: August 8-13 [pertaining to LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3]. Subject line is:

Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3

69

LC-PCC PS 6.4.1.3. PCC practice: Record Date of Work in series authority records using the 046 field whenever it has been used as a qualifier to the authorized access point. Otherwise, record date of work whenever it is readily ascertainable.

SCS: The work is the series, so the date of the work would be the date of publication of the component part that was published first, regardless of whether this part carried the lowest numbering or whether it carried a chronological designation that was earlier or later than its date of publication. The situation is clarified in CCM 10.4.3, which refers to the use of "first published issue" in AACR2 1.4F8.

LC-PCC PS 6.5.1.3. PCC practice: Record Place of Origin of the Work in series authority records using the 370 field whenever it has been used as a qualifier to the authorized access point. Place of Origin of the Work may also be recorded in cases where it has not been used as a qualifier. Especially consider recording it if it would be helpful in retrieving or identifying the work, is particularly closely associated with the series, or would be otherwise helpful to users of the record.

SCS rewording: LC-PCC PS 6.5.1.3. PCC practice: Record Place of Origin of the Work in series authority records using the 370 field whenever it has been used as a qualifier to the authorized access point. Place of Origin of the Work may also be recorded in cases where it has not been used as a qualifier. For now, generally limit it to when it is used as a qualifier and the place is actually the origin of the work, not merely the manifestation. Especially consider recording it if it would be helpful in retrieving or identifying the work, is particularly closely associated with the series, or would be otherwise helpful to users of the record.

LC-PCC PS 6.6.1.3. PCC practice: Record Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work whenever it has been used as a qualifier in the authorized access point. Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work may also be recorded in cases where it has not been used as a qualifier. Record using controlled vocabulary if possible. Use the following fields to record Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work:

Corporate bodies or other groups associated with the work: 373 field

Any other distinguishing characteristic of the work: 381 field

See also LC-PCC PS 6.3.1.3, 6.4.1.3, and 6.5.1.3 on Form of Work, Date of the Work, and Place of Origin of the Work, any of which might be used as a qualifier in an authorized access point.

SCS agrees with this Policy Statement. Prefer using 373 instead of 381 unless the task group first does a proposal to add ‘associated group’ to chapter 6.

LC-PCC PS 6.9.1.3. PCC practice: Record Content type in expression-level series authority records using the 336 field.

70

LC-PCC PS 6.10.1.3. PCC practice: Record Date of Expression in series authority records using the 046 field whenever it has been used as a qualifier to the authorized access point for the expression. Otherwise, record date of expression whenever it is readily ascertainable.


LC-PCC PS 6.11.1.3. Series Authority Records. PCC practice: Record Language of expression in expression-level series authority records representing materials that have a language of expression using the 377 field. Record language of expression in series authority records only if the record represents an expression. Do not record language of expression in series authority records that represent works.

SCS: Reword LC-PCC PS 6.11.1.3 to: PCC practice: Series Authority Records. PCC practice: Record language of expression in series authority records only if the record represents an expression other than the original language. Use field 377 for recording the language.

LC-PCC PS 6.12.1.3. PCC practice: Record Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression whenever it has been used as a qualifier in the authorized access point. Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression may also be recorded in cases where it has not been used as a qualifier. Record using controlled vocabulary if possible. Use the following fields to record Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression:

Corporate bodies or other groups associated with the expression: 373 field

Any other distinguishing characteristic of the expression: 381 field

SCS: Prefer using 373 instead of 381 unless the task group first does a proposal to add 'associated group' to chapter 6.

See also LC-PCC PS 6.9.1.3, 6.10.1.3, and 6.11.1.3 on Content Type, Date of the Expression, and Language of the Expression, any of which might be also used in an authorized access point.

LC-PCC PS 6.27. Authorized Access Points for Series [note: this entire PS needs to be reevaluated; this proposed policy statement only covers one aspect of the PS]. [section letter]. Series that Exist in More Than One Language Expression. PCC Practice:

1. Create a work-level authority record for the series


This access point may be used in bibliographic records for subject access to resources about series that exist in more than one language expression. For other access points, use the authorized access point for the appropriate expression(s).

71



3. Use the authorized access point(s) for the language expressions in bibliographic records, as appropriate


4. For bilingual series, include a 655 field in the bibliographic record for the resource:

655 #0 Bilingual books.

SCS: Disagrees with recommended policy statement.

NLM agrees with comments from the SCS that series where different volumes are published in different languages does not mean that the series has multiple expressions. We also do not see the need to create expression level authority records for the original language.

Delete LC-PCC PS 6.27.1.9. Serials. Subsection 8. Or revise to read: Serial common title not issued alone or lacking numbering. Test such a serial common title for conflict by itself. If necessary, qualify the serial common title. When the serial common title is for a series, optionally create an authority record for the main series.

SCS agrees with this recommendation

LC-PCC PS 6.27.2. PCC practice: If a part number and/or part title is present on the preferred source but the main series title is not, but the main series title is known from other sources, base the authorized access point on the main series title.

EXAMPLE

130 $a Main series title. $n Part number, $p Part title

If a part number and/or part title is present on the preferred source but a main series title is not, but the main series title is not known from other sources, base the authorized access point on the part number.

130 $a Serie G, $p Estudios doctrinales

SEE PCCLIST: July 28-30 [pertaining to LC-PCC PS 24.6]. Subject line is:

72

Interim report of the PCC Series Policy Task Force: LC-PCC PS 6.24.6

SCS proposes: LC-PCC PS 24.6 [new section letter]. Abbreviations.Per RDA 24.6.1.3, the number in access points is recorded, not transcribed, and is subject to the abbreviation guidelines in appendix B.5.5. (For example, if the numbering on the resource appears as “number 6” it is recorded in the access point as “no.6”)

LC-PCC PS 24.6 [new section letter]. Variant Numbering Patterns. PCC Practice: When recording the numbering practice in field 642 of the series authority record, if presentation of the series numbering differs in different parts of resources within a series, select the form found in the first or earliest issue or part available of the series according to the order of preference given in RDA 2.6.2.2, in the same source as that chosen for the title proper of the series. If different forms of numbering appear in that source, or no numbering is found in that source, record one of the presentations; generally prefer the fuller form (e.g., prefer a form with a caption over one without).

SCS proposes rewording: LC-PCC PS 24.6 [new section letter]. Variant Numbering Patterns. PCC Practice: When recording the numbering practice in field 642 of the series authority record, if the form of the series numbering differs in different parts of resources within a series, select the form found in the same source as that chosen for the title proper of the series. If different forms of numbering appear in that source, or no numbering is found in that source, prefer a form with a caption over one without.

LC-PCC PS 24.6. [new section letter]. Series Numbering Practice in Existing Records. PCC practice: Generally accept the numbering practice recorded in the 642 field of an existing record. When upgrading an AACR2 series authority record to RDA or revising an existing RDA authority record change the numbering practice only if strong evidence exists to change it (e.g., the cataloger has evidence from an earlier part than the part that was the basis for identification when the series was originally established). Do not revise the series numbering example in the absence of such evidence.

NLM does not agree with this recommendation. Adjusting the series numbering practice when upgrading to RDA will have an effect on how series are indexed and displayed. We do not want to have to perform manual maintenance on all the bibliographic records which contain this series to adjust the numbering. In addition, adjusting the series numbering could in some cases affect the call number for analytic items. We would prefer to continue to use the existing series numbering even when upgrading the series record to RDA (this is our current policy).

LC-PCC PS 24.6.1.3. PCC practice: Record numerals in series numbering as Arabic numerals. Abbreviate terms used as part of the numbering as instructed in Appendix B. Substitute one form of abbreviation with the prescribed abbreviation.

73


LC-PCC PS 25.1.1.3. PCC Practice: When recording a relationship to a series using an authorized access point in 8XX, always support the access point by recording the series statement in 490, a note (such as 534), or a 7XX linking field.

SCS has not reached consensus on this suggestion. See outstanding issue #1 at end of document.

Proposal from SCS for new policy statement:

SCS: Suggested LC-PCC PS for RDA A.4.1 to allay confusion:Under AACR2, it was PCC practice (RI A.4A1) that, when a title began with an introductory word used in apposition to the noun or noun phrase that followed it, both the introductory word and the word following were capitalized (e.g., Série Ecrivains du XXe siècle; Serie Estudios de literatura y pensamiento hispánicos). This practice was discontinued with the implementation of RDA.

NLM: We agree with the SCS statement regarding this issue on page 60. We are not sure that we want to change the CSR policy to require the inclusion of the 490 field, however we do understand that LC does not trace series and only records series statements in the 490. We agree that there needs to be more discussion on this topic within the PCC community with a documentation of the costs/benefits of each option.

Proposed OCLC policy change:

OCLC- Series authority coding for Series-like phrases: 008/16Recommendation: Request OCLC to refine its "Control headings software", as follows: When the "control headings" function is used to control series fields 800, 810, 811, or 830, it should only control the series authorized access point whenever there also exists a corresponding series authority record, and the authority fixed field byte 008/12 "Type of series" has value "a", "b", or "z". If it has value "c", "series-like phrase," then the heading will not be controlled. It would be helpful if the following message (or a similar one) also appears: "This heading is identical to a series-like phrase." Appendix II. Other Series-Related Policy Statements That Still Need Review

DCM Z1 - Introduction (whole section needs review in addition to additions suggested in Appendix I)

DCM Z1, 046

DCM Z1, 380

74

DCM Z1, 64X

DCM Z1, 667, 670, 675

LC-PCC PS 0.0 (some language about series)

LC-PCC PS 1.5.3 (some language about series)

LC-PCC PS 1.7.1 (some language about series)

LC-PCC PS 2.1 (some language about series aside from that treated in Appendix I)

LC-PCC PS 2.1.3

LC-PCC PS 2.3.1.7

LC-PCC PS 2.3.2.13 & 2.3.2.13.1

LC-PCC PS 2.12 (whole section needs review in addition to additions suggested in Appendix I)

LC-PCC PS 6.1.3.2

LC-PCC PS 6.2.2, 6.2.2.8



LC-PCC PS 25.0

Outstanding Issues for PoCo raised by SCS:

1.How Many SARS should be made?S received the following comment from a series specialist:

“DCM Z1, Introduction, How Many SARs Should Be Made? Guidelines still has this statement: (3) How many authority records are made if the same volumes in a series are published separately by publishers in the same language in the United States and in another country (e.g., England)? A separate SAR is made for the series from each publisher; if the titles of the series are the same, add a LCRI 25.5B qualifier to the SAR made later.

This very directly continues the pre-RDA policy that SARs in the NAF are specific to and differentiated for manifestations of series. Its continued presence is a block if someone requests that I merge SARs for different series manifestations from different publishers or modify an existing such SAR and have to re-code it as RDA. I identified these problem matters years ago. The interim report has a recommendation about SARs for print and online versions of the same series, but that is too limited, as the guideline cited above shows. It is indeed a big task to redesign series policies to be work- and expression-oriented and not manifestation-oriented as it has been in the past, and it is not surprising

75

if that work is still in progress. Dealing with the policy cited above is one necessary thing among many that still has to be done.”

While the TG report says that RDA simply lacks instructions for manifestation AAPs, it also lacks any justification for catalogers trying to construct manifestation AAPs on their own, see 24.4.

If the content is identical, then the resources involved are manifestations of a common expression, and while there will be distinct key titles (because of ISSN rules), there will not be distinct AAPs, and so presumably a single SAR. Also presumably, the qualifier in the key title will always be preferred to the ISSN if a qualifier is needed for the AAP, and consequently an ISSN will never be used as a qualifier in an AAP?

2. Recording of multiple ISSNs in one authority record? This has been referred to Regina Reynolds for comment

3. LC-PCC PS 25.1.1.3. PCC Practice: When recording a relationship to a series using an authorized access point in 8XX, always support the access point by recording the series statement in 490, a note (such as 534), or a 7XX linking field.

This, in a nutshell, is the current BSR practice for monographs. We also draw attention to the fact that LC and CONSER Core guidelines are virtually diametrically opposed for new records: LC does not trace series, and requires 490 but not 8XX; CONSER requires 8XX but not 490 if the series is being traced. If PoCo wishes to adopt a single approach, we recommend that the Series Policy Task Group be asked to lay out the pros and cons for PoCo. It would be good if there were input from the PCC community at large. PoCo should rely heavily on comments from the CONSER and BIBCO representatives.

4. This was not part of the report but SCS would like PoCo to discuss where the best “home” in PCC would be for series-related issues.

COMMENTER 3: 5. The SCS would like PoCo to discuss whether different manifestations of series that contain the complete works of a person should be considered one aggregate work (i.e. discontinue the practice of adding the date to the end of the CCT Works). This would have implications beyond just series as a good percentage of complete works are unanalyzable multi-part (or even single-part) monographs. Should all existing authority records with a date after “Works” be collapsed? Can this be done by machine or would they all need human review. Should such records be marked as potentially not valid under RDA until reviewed?

76

Documents

Web viewThe instructions are to: “Capitalize the first word or the abbreviation of the first word in a title and in a title of a part, section, or supplement (see 2.3.1.7)