Catalog Policy and Documentation Committee Minutes:
5 April 2007
Present: Steven Arakawa (chair), Eva Bolkovac, Ellen Cordes, Eric Friede, Larry Heiman, Britta Santamauro, Rick Sarcia, Keiko Suzuki (recording), Penny Welbourne (recording)
Guests: Rowena Griem (Co-chair of Task Force for Serial Access Level Records Final Report)
The discussion from 15 March 2007 regarding the CONSER Standard Record implementation at Yale was continued.
In the course of the review of the CONSER presentation, reference was continually made to the Yale Task Force for Serial Records report.
Field 362 (Dates of Publication and/or Sequential Designation): use of 515 field (Numbering Peculiarities Note) is not mandatory—the information can be recorded in a 362 field (Steven indicated that he had no problem with using the 362). The University of Chicago is putting together a list of alternative examples using the 362 to record this information). CONSER documentation says enter in 362 or 515, “whichever is clearer.” The revised CONSER draft documentation (3/29/07) has examples of both practices in the appendix. CPDC: 515 is less likely to be viewed (does not display in BRIEF), but the information is primarily of interest to acquisitions staff. Copy: accept as is. Original: OK to use 515 (the 362 examples that include numbering changes are not easy to follow by the uninitiated).
Field 310 (Current Publication Frequency): the Yale TF for Serials Records report indicated that Serial Support wants to continue reporting frequency information in this field, since it is used to determine predictive patterns. If a new frequency begins, then the former frequency information can be moved to field 321 (Former Publication Frequency) and the new frequency reported in 310 (which is especially useful for catalog maintenance). But only the current frequency information (310) is required. Yale will follow the existing CONSER practice, which is “if there is a former frequency in field 310, move the former frequency to field 321, and add the current frequency in field 310. When there are a total of three former frequencies, replace the former frequencies with one 321 field that reads ‘Frequency varies.’”
Steven will ask Joan if the decision to add or to not add a 321 field should be left to catalogers’ judgment. However, this type of situation may not happen often enough that it would be a big issue. Perhaps the policy can be stated that this only needs to be done if it is needed by Serial Support—otherwise, follow the CONSER standards (i.e., on a case-by-case basis).Joan suggests: a. if the title is ongoing, include 321 b. if the title is a backfile and determining the change in frequency will be time consuming, consult with Serial Support. But note that if the cataloger is also creating the MFHD volume holdings, working out the frequency may be unavoidable in any case. And the CONSER limit of three frequency changes would still be observed.
Field 4XX (Series Statement): the TF indicated (and CPDC agrees) that we should continue to follow local Yale practices—i.e., trace a series when it is appropriate to do so.
Field 550 (Issuing Body Note): the LCRI indicated that “it is not required to make notes on issuing bodies unless authority work does not exist or will not be created.” But the CONSER standard also states that if an issuing body heading is not traced--presumably because the library did not want to establish the heading in an NAR--the cataloger needs to record the information in a 550 field.CPDC agrees with the TF recommendation that Yale does not want to follow the CONSER standard here—we will put the information in a 710, and if there is no authority record available, then we will create one. (If a NAR is made, a 550 will not be necessary)* CPDC would add that: The workflow scenario needs to be clarified for copy cataloging: if a record does not already have a 710, but does have information in the 550 field, then an authority record search should be done to see if it is in the proper form. If it is not, then the item should be referred to a NACO-authorized cataloger. Additionally, if the item we are working with is a variant that does not already appear in the authority record, then we will add the variant to the authority record.
Eva suggested creating a checklist of what we will now be doing differently with serials, which Steven indicated he would do.
*The rationale for not making a note is that there is an existing authority record documenting the form as it appeared on the item cataloged.
Miscellaneous Note Fields:
530 (Additional Physical Form Available Note): there is nothing on the TF report relative to this—use 776 (Additional Physical Form Entry) instead, with a subfield i: “also issued in print…” [This may require that the current OPAC label for 776 (NOTES) needs to be revised.] CPDC recommendation: no hyperlink unless a record for the other format is in Orbis and Yale controls the resource (a link from a print record to a CD-ROM record is OK; a link from a print record to a leased remote resource would not be OK).
Steven is planning to put together a list of fields that will be dropped in CONSER records; concerns can be reported to Rowena.
538 (Systems Detail Note): is not considered to be an issue.
546 (Language Note): this is not considered to be an issue [see discussion from 3/5/2007 on 041].
580 (Linking Entry Complexity Note): Britta commented that this is much better and presents no issues.
Fields 730 (Added Entry—Uniform Title) and 740 (Added Entry—Uncontrolled Related Analytical Title): instead of using field 130 for recording uniform title information, use the added entry field 730 with a linking field 775.
Uniform titles are not required for translations and language editions. To be determined: can we use $w fields to link 780/785 in Orbis. If this works, uniform titles may be less crucial for tracing title changes.
[In general, CONSER now prefers using linking fields, e.g. 7XX, over using other types of fields.]
Standard Numbers and Terms of Availability: Steven noted that CPDCis developing policies for field 856 (basically: policy is no linking of print record to the remote electronic resource).
Miscellaneous Issues:
Steven has received the “ok” to use the CONSER PowerPoint presentation for training.
The PowerPoint presentation will also be made available as a handout. A link will be provided to the CONSER documentation.
More clarification is need for copy catalogers: for example, in handling corporate names. Steven will create a check list and send it out to CPDC members for review.
It will be important to stress that the CONSER standard record development is nota recommendation to go back and change existing CONSER records to align them with the current standards!
Steven will send out an announcement about the CONSER standard record on yulib, with a link to the Yale Task Force Report.
A checklist for Public Services will also be created to highlight and identify those things that are new, and the local decisions that have been made about how to handle them. A note can be added that “if you have trouble distinguishing between titles, let us know.”
Need to point out the fact that Uniform Titles for translations and language editions has been dropped by CONSER.
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Penny Welbourne