The
Library of Congress
>> Cataloging 
PCC Standing Committee on StandardsTask Group on Conference PublicationsFinal Report
Background: In April 2001 the PCC Standing Committee on Standards established this Task Group on Conference Publications to address four issues that affect the cataloging, processing and use of conference publications. Three of the issues are follow-up recommendations from the CONSER task force and one is a newer issue.
Four of the five members of the Task Group met June 16, 2001, during the Annual Conference of the American Library Association (ALA) in San Francisco. Besides allowing those present to get better acquainted and to reach a common understanding of the charge to the group, the ninety-minute gathering provided time to hold initial discussions on each of the four items in the charge. Three members of the Task Group met April 30, 2002, just prior to the PCC's CONSER and BIBCO Operations Committees' Annual Meetings in Washington. In a productive meeting held in the conference room of the Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) at the Library of Congress (LC) significant progress was made toward resolution of matters related to all four items in the group's charge. It was particularly helpful to receive valuable guidance and assistance from CPSO on some of those issues. All five members of the Task Group met June 16, 2002, during the ALA Annual Conference in Atlanta. It was at this final meeting, with all members present, that most of the remaining issues were discussed and resolved. Between these in-person gatherings the members of the task group discussed the issues via e-mail, using a mail list set up at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). While the amount of discussion occurring electronically was surely greater, it seemed that more progress toward resolution of the issues was made during those personal encounters. During its deliberations the Task Group sought little guidance and few opinions from beyond its members. As mentioned earlier, opinions relayed to the group from CPSO were of great assistance. The group received what proved to be a valuable suggestion from Paul J. Weiss of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), related to item 2 of the charge. For item 4 of the charge, it was helpful to have knowledge of relevant policies followed at UCSD, Rutgers University, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and MIT. An attempt to solicit the opinions of science and technology cataloging specialists via an appropriately focused electronic discussion list yielded no comments on any of the items in our charge. In the end it was primarily the intellectual contributions and the discussions of the five members of the group itself that led to consensus on all four items in the charge. Recommendations and discussions: 1. Develop clear guidelines in the rules that can be used by catalog librarians in determining a consistent choice of title for conference publications. Recommendation: The Task Group recommends no changes in current policies and practices. Discussion: Among those who catalog a large quantity of conference publications it has become apparent over the years that serial catalogers and monograph catalogers have, in general, different criteria for selecting the title proper of a typical conference publication. Though both catalogers follow the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR), a monograph cataloger and a serial cataloger can look at the same page of the same publication issued by a conference and select different information on that page as the title proper. How can that be? If both catalogers are experienced professionals following the same rules should not their choices be identical? As this Task Group included a diverse group of catalogers, some with more
serial expertise, some with more monograph expertise, but all with experience
encompassing the entire spectrum of conference publications, the group's initial
discussions included arguments that might be thought of as reflecting both
sides of this issue. On the other hand, the monograph cataloger is more likely to take into account
the design and typography of the chief source, and take a top-to-bottom of
the page approach in recording the title proper of a conference publication.
And there is a tendency to consider as subtitle the very words that serials
catalogers tend to select as title proper. "Proceedings" for
example, may appear toward the bottom of the page, likely in smaller print
than the name of the conference, and is not thought of as a weighty or meaningful
title selection. In addition, the monograph cataloger's choice of title is
more likely to coincide with what users, publishers, indexers, and public service
librarians consider to be a title. While all catalogers know that conferences
have names, others who work with or consult conference publications seem to
agree that conferences have titles, not names. In recent years small, but noticeable, trends toward more monograph catalog records for conference publications have been observed. In 1997 it was decided that there was a distinct advantage in giving all conference publications issued in numbered monographic series monograph cataloging treatment. More recently, as conference publications have become widely available on the World Wide Web, some libraries have found it advantageous to move further toward monograph cataloging because web publishers, in general, have a tendency to treat conference publications as individual works, or books, and thus assign each publication of an ongoing conference a distinct URI unrelated to the URIs of other publications from the same ongoing conference. Perhaps this serial title vs. monograph title debate will only be resolved several years from now when the trend toward cataloging all conference publications as monographs has triumphed. Until that time arrives it seems that both practices must coexist, and that no great harm has resulted from our OPACs containing records that appear to follow two different cataloging rules. 2. Review and propose changes beyond those recommended by CC:DA in the Major changes appendix to the rules to define categories of minor changes in name, which would not constitute a name change (similar to the provisions in AACR2 21.2A1 and LCRI 21.2A). Recommendation: The Task Group recommends that the LC issue a rule interpretation (LCRI) that will allow a change in the order of corporate names associated with a conference to be considered a variant name of the conference rather than a conference name requiring a new record. This LCRI might be accommodated by means of a revision of LCRI 24.2 (Variant names. General rules) to add a fourth provision under the existing sentence, "A difference is minor if the existing heading and the name in the publication being cataloged differ only in one or more of the ways below":
Discussion: The ALA/CC:DA proposal to change rule 24.1C was discussed at the Oct. 2001 Meeting of the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC). The result of that discussion was a request that ALA withdraw the proposal. While there was some support for a few of the specific proposals, there was very little support for the proposal as a whole. This development altered the Task Group's deliberations in two ways. In addition to considering changes that would move beyond the ALA proposal to JSC, the group could now restudy the specific recommendations of the proposal to JSC. Additionally, the fact that JSC had just requested that a number of rule proposals be withdrawn indicated to this group that any recommendations it might eventually propose should be in the form of LCRI proposals, not proposals to change AACR itself. Even in this Task Group there seemed to be minimal support for the more radical specifics of the ALA proposal (i.e., 24.1C1 d), e), f), and g), all of which dealt in some way with addition, deletion, or change of the names of higher bodies or conference sponsors within a heading). There was more support for looking again at 24.1C1 a) of that proposal, which specified several minor changes to names that could be considered extensions of the "representation of words" type of name variation. (Two other changes proposed by ALA/CC:DA (24.1C1 b) and c)) would only have transferred two specific provisions of LCRI 24.2 to the rules themselves, so no further consideration of them was necessary.) While there was support among some members of the Task Group for expanding the number of minor name variants specified in LCRI 24.2, Minor Changes of Name, 1, in the end there was insufficient support for recommending the addition of any one specific type. Therefore, no recommendations are being made as a result of these expansive and lengthy deliberations. The one recommendation being made by the Task Group originated as a proposal from Paul J. Weiss, UCSD, to the Library of Congress for a new LCRI. The proposal was forwarded from LC/CPSO, accompanied by an indication that LC considered it a promising idea for an LCRI. The Task Group agrees. 3. Review and propose changes to the rules to provide clear guidelines on how to record the abbreviated form of the year in the name of a conference when establishing the heading for that conference. (For example, EuroGP'99 vs. EuroGP '99) Recommendations: A. Revise LCRI 24.1 under "Punctuation" to add a specific instruction for the form of name of a conference containing the abbreviated or full form of the year of the conference. This addition to the LCRI might read:
B. Revise LCRI 1.0C by adding a section containing specific instructions for recording the name of a conference containing the abbreviated or full form of the year. The instructions for recording the name of the conference in the description would be identical to the instructions for constructing the heading for the conference. Discussion: Publishers' practices for the presentation of conference names vary. Even a single publisher may not have a consistent practice. For those conference names that consist of an abbreviation, acronym, initialism, and/or word(s) in combination with an abbreviated form of the year, practices seem especially inconsistent. Creative title page and cover design and typography may present additional complexities to the cataloger trying to record or establish the name of a conference. It would not be unusual for a cataloger to have to decide amongst, say, TACAS '99, TACAS'99, and TACAS 99 when recording a conference name, because the cataloger is finding it difficult to determine the exact form shown in a title page graphic presentation. Lacking any specific guidance for standardizing the recording of such conference names, catalogers have attempted to record them as they appear on the chief source or elsewhere in a publication. Non-standardized practice in description has resulted in non-standardized name headings for these same conferences. Not only can we find NACO records reflecting different styles for these conference names, but we can find groups of NACO records for a single ongoing conference using different approaches. In these cases, inconsistencies can result in needlessly muddled OPAC browse displays for publications of an ongoing conference, unreliable and unpredictable results for OPAC keyword searches of conference names, and duplicate name authority records under variant forms of a name. It is possible to come up with numerous examples of problematic records, but these examples, showing lists of actual NACO headings in standard display order, illustrate the nature of the problem:
In addition to those conference names that include in their names a two-digit designation of the year of the conference, preceded in some cases by an apostrophe, similar types have been identified and must be mentioned. Names that include either a slash or a dash between the name portion of the heading and the year portion of the heading (e.g., Electro/88 and Expomicro-86) might appear also to require specific instructions. But, while these headings may be problematic in some settings or systems, in any system conforming to NACO normalization the presence or absence of a dash or slash in lists of headings would not be problematic. Thus, no specific provision for this type of conference name heading is being recommended. While the written charge to this group mentioned only the abbreviated form of the year in a conference name, a Mar. 2001 revision to LCRI 24.7A extended the provisions of that LCRI to the full form of the year as well. A corresponding extension to this third charge was assumed to be appropriate. 4. Explore options for ensuring that runs of conference publications are classed in the same classification number when cataloging them as monographs. For example, recording the class number in authority records for conference names Recommendations: A. In the NACO authority record for a named ongoing conference a PCC participant using LC classification should have the option of including a classification number in MARC 053 (LC Classification Number) so that all publications associated with that conference might be easily and readily gathered together, whenever appropriate, in the same LC classification number, by all catalogers. 1. This practice could apply both to ongoing conferences represented in the NACO file by a single record for all occurrences of the conference, and to ongoing conferences represented in the file by separate records for each occurrence.
2. A PCC/NACO special interest group consisting of representatives from cataloging agencies wishing to participate in this effort should be established and charged with developing and maintaining policies and procedures for participants. B. No change to the present content designation of MARC 21 Format for Authority Data is required to allow full implementation of this recommendation. But, to enable proper implementation of this recommendation, it is further recommended that the proposed PCC/NACO special interest group be assigned the responsibility for drafting and recommending to LC all appropriate MARC and MARC-related documentation, as well as any other documentation for this new procedure. Documentation in need of revision would include, but not necessarily be limited to:
Discussion: A number of libraries with significant collections of conference publications have also a strong interest in classifying together, in a logical sequence, all publications issued by the ongoing conferences represented in their collections. Catalogers at MIT, Rutgers, UCLA, and UCSD, for example, have similar policies and procedures for maintaining chronological sequences of these materials for their library users. These sequences may ignore changes in the choice of main entry from one publication to the next, and they usually retain the same base call number through any conference name changes that might occur. Currently there exists no mechanism for all the libraries sharing this common interest and practice to collaborate or to share readily the base classification numbers they establish for a particular ongoing conference. It was this expressed desire to collaborate in a shared endeavor that influenced the discussions of charge 4 by the members of the Task Group. The group's initial discussions of this charge concentrated on identifying the conference universe that might be covered by any recommendations. That universe could potentially have included unnamed conferences as well as named conferences; ongoing conferences gathered under a single name, and conferences with name changes; and ongoing conferences represented by a single NAR, as well as those with a separate NAR for each occurrence of the conference. If any recommendation were to apply to unnamed conferences (e.g., those ongoing, but unnamed conference publications issued by the Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)), there would have to be some mechanism for providing guidance to catalogers that would not involve NACO name authority records. The group considered potential revisions to the Subject Cataloging Manual (SCM): Shelflisting (sections G230, G740, and G820, for example) and to the Subject Cataloging Manual: Classification (sections F240, and F632, for example). This approach suffered from several drawbacks, among them being that it would be difficult to precisely determine which unnamed conference publications might be covered by any SCM guidelines, and that the SCM volumes were neither the most obvious nor the most convenient place for NACO catalogers not regularly cataloging publications of unnamed conferences to encounter guidance in their classification. And LC, which had already indicated its reluctance to impose any charge 4 recommendations on its own catalogers, could certainly not be asked to draft and maintain SCM provisions that LC itself would not follow. Thus, it made sense to eliminate unnamed conferences from consideration. Limiting this conference universe to only named conferences, allowed the group's discussion to shift to the one other approach that seemed workable, which also happened to be the one possible approach given as an example in the charge to the Task Group: "… recording the class number in authority records for conference names." Passing consideration was given to adding such conference classification guidelines to NACO Participant's Manual, possibly to the MARC 053 page(s), but that technique seemed inadequate and surely inappropriate without there being revision of the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data itself first. In considering the MARC authorities format documentation for (LC) classification guidelines, the Task Group looked at three possibilities, the 050, the 053, and the 09X. The MARC 053 seemed easily the best of the three. Because any classification guidelines could apply to all publications related to an ongoing conference a field defined for a classification number (053), not a call number (050), would be appropriate. Definition of a new local classification field (i.e., 093) seemed unnecessarily problematic, especially considering that the second indicator "4" of the MARC 053 had already been defined for classification numbers "assigned by an agency other than LC." The classification number recording mechanism being considered for conference publications seemed similar to the mechanism shown by examples already existing in the pages of MARC 053, especially the "Martha Grimes" and the "$5 DI" examples. The fact that utilization of the MARC 053 could apparently proceed with no changes to the MARC format's content designation meant that the Task Group needed to look no further for a solution to its fourth charge. The Library of Congress has already indicated that it is not in a position to instruct its catalogers to implement the use of the MARC 053 for classification numbers of ongoing conferences. But a minimal amount of revision to the existing MARC 053 documentation would enable implementation of this approach by other PCC member libraries. Because implementation of this first recommendation would be the first NACO
use of the MARC 053 for any name headings other than those of literary authors,
LC has indicated concerns about the specifics of any implementation. Some idea
of how many and which PCC participants might participate would be desirable.
LC also has expressed concerns about maintenance of this information. For these
reasons at least, establishing a PCC participant group of some sort would be
appropriate, especially through implementation. Following implementation, periodic
assessment of the success of the MARC 053 practice by PCC SCS would be appropriate. |
||||||||
 Top
of Page
|
| The
Library of Congress >> Cataloging January 3, 2008 |
Contact Us |