Abstract
Serials cataloging is a difficult specialty to master, often requiring the cataloger to grapple with changes in title, frequency, numbering, and whether or not a given title is current, ceased, or resurrected. Until relatively recently, one of the few constants about serial issues was that they were delivered in a physical medium, usually in print, but sometimes also in microform. The advent of electronic resources adds another layer of complexity to an already amorphous type of material by rendering it virtually. The Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program's (SCCTP's) Electronic Serials Cataloging Workshop is intended to help catalogers new to the challenges presented by electronic serials by providing a comprehensive overview of CONSER (Cooperative ONline SERials) practice; the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2); and MARC 21 tagging specific to electronic serials.
INTRODUCTION
Despite the grim economy, which has affected training and travel budgets, ten librarians were able to attend the Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program's (SCCTP's) Electronic Serials Cataloging Workshop offered by two presenters from the Library of Congress, Linda Geisler and Esther Simpson. This day-and-a-half-long preconference consisted of Geisler and Simpson alternately explaining sections of the Electronic Serials Cataloging Workshop: Trainee Manual.Footnote 1 Due to changes in the material since the manual was last revised, they offered some of the content in a different order to better facilitate the attendees' understanding. Many sections included group or individual exercises designed to illuminate various concepts. The presenters encouraged questions and discussion was welcomed.
After introducing themselves, Geisler and Simpson posed a question to the attendees: Why are you taking this course? The responses, written on a flip chart, included the need to learn how to catalog online resources, how to formulate coverage notes, which fields are specific to electronic serials, two-record versus one-record approach, and how to determine whether a title is an integrating resource or an electronic serial. The presenters then used the list of responses to shape how they presented the material and referred back to it from time to time over the length of the course to ensure that they incorporated all of them. This approach helped to connect the daily work of the attendees to the material being presented.
CATALOGING ELECTRONIC SERIALS
Geisler covered Session 1, which introduced the participants to the goals of the workshop and the tools and resources needed to put the concepts presented into action. Types of online serials, including born digital, reproductions, and simultaneous editions of print titles, were discussed. Aggregated titles were also mentioned. The most important point made here was to define a serial and an integrating resource. This can be so difficult to determine that the session ended with exercises meant to help the participants decide if a given title is either a serial or an integrating resource. The presenters asked the attendees to do the exercises and to justify their choice in each case. The ensuing discussion illustrated that sometimes the correct answer is uncertain.
In Session 2, “Cataloging an Online Serial,” the presenters delved into the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2); CONSER (Cooperative ONline SERials) guidelines; and the MARC 21 fields required to create an original record for an online serial, while following the cataloging of a specific title through the process. The attendees went through numerous examples of rule interpretations and tagging that began with the fixed fields, additional material characteristics, and physical description fields required for electronic serials. Several slides covered identifying the chief source of information, prescribed sources for the title, how to construct the title statement and the title source note, as well as how to record any variant titles. While there was some mention of similarities to other formats, the emphasis was on the differences inherent in cataloging electronic serials.
After going over when to use a 362 field as opposed to a 500 field note for recording what the cataloger was viewing when cataloging the title, some time was spent on the various other types of notes used to describe an electronic serial more fully. This discussion included the required “description based on” note, as well as notes for recording changes in numbering or to provide a summary of the electronic serial's content. Simpson noted that the 538 field is now only required if the title is not accessed via the World Wide Web. She also mentioned that the series statement is traced in an 800, 810, 811, or 830 field as the 440 field is now obsolete.
A brief overview of subject analysis for electronic serials was followed by a more in-depth discussion of electronic serial ISSNs, which can be more confusing to identify than it initially appears. The last large areas covered were the links, both between serial title changes and between serial format changes, and links to the resource itself. Ferreting out which URLs to use, how many of them, and what kind of descriptions they may need to correctly identify their relationship to the title rounded out the session. Participants were separated into three groups to work through cataloging an electronic serial title together, an exercise that generated many questions and helped to synthesize the Session 2 material.
Electing to save Session 3 for last, Geisler conducted Session 4, “Online Versions.” This portion of the course was devoted to comparing and contrasting the single-record approach and the separate-record approach to cataloging a serial title in different formats. The single-record approach is often preferred by public services librarians because it requires fewer records and it is easier for patrons to have all formats of a title in one place. It also requires less staff time to catalog them. However, it can make the electronic version of the title more difficult to find when searching, keep a library from being able to use record sets offered for just the electronic serial titles, and affect resource sharing.
The separate-record approach requires the use of more records, but it can readily highlight the differences between the print and electronic versions of a title, particularly when their content is not identical. Employing the separate-record approach also allows for the use of a service that provides regularly updated MAchine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) records for electronic serial titles to which a library has access. Some large providers of records, such as the U.S. Government Printing Office, have recently moved in this direction.
The remainder of the session contained several slides detailing how to create a single MARC record for print and electronic formats, as well as how to create a separate record for an electronic serial title by using the record for the print title. The use of a separate record for an electronic serial may require that some fields be added to the record for the print serial.
Session 5, “Changes that Affect Cataloging,” was the final one for the first day of the workshop. Simpson led this session, handing out additional pages to update the manual. The most common changes that can affect cataloging are change of the online location, change of format and, as with print serials, title changes. URLs must be checked on a regular basis to ensure that the resource described by the MARC record is still accessible. One method to avoid this checking is to use PURLs, or Persistent Uniform Resource Locators, an intermediate URL that always remains the same, even if the actual location of the resource changes. However, the change in the URL must be recorded by the PURL provider or the resource can still become inaccessible.
The most common change of format is from print to online; however, sometimes there are overlapping issues available in both formats. Simpson discussed CONSER practice for appropriate linking fields and what fields should be added to the print and online versions of the title.
Perhaps the most difficult concept to understand was title changes, because in an online environment, an earlier title can disappear when a later version of the electronic serial is posted. How to find and appropriately document such changes proved to be a daunting exercise the attendees worked on at the conclusion to Session 5.
The final half-day of the workshop consisted of two sessions, Session 6, “Case Studies,” and Session 3, “Aggregations/Packages.” Geisler took the class through six problems catalogers may confront when trying to catalog an electronic serial:
| • | Serial lacks a dedicated page: Possible solutions would be to catalog each title separately, giving directions to the serial's URL; identify an anchor URL that can get the patron to a specific part of a list of titles; or use multiple URLs. | ||||
| • | No back issues (article database): First identify if it is truly a serial; if it is and has no archive, base the description on the current issue. | ||||
| • | Multiple language editions: Possible solutions would be to catalog each title separately, catalog them both on one record with a parallel title, or catalog only the language appropriate to the library. | ||||
| • | Online supplement to a print serial: Use the same principles used to determine if a print serial supplement deserves a separate record; if not, a note and a URL may be added to the print record. | ||||
| • | Problematic URLs: Session or institution specific URLs should never be put into OCLC master records because they will not work for everyone. If possible, provide access to the home page so that the patron may be able to get to the title from there. | ||||
| • | Buried title change: Online publishers will sometimes wrap the current title around older full-text articles; be sure to find and account for all title changes. | ||||
Simpson finished up the workshop with Session 3, “Aggregations/Packages.” She began by asking the participants how they were managing their electronic serials. Most named a service provider, but some were cataloging their own. She discussed the Library of Congress' development of an electronic resource management (ERM) system before segueing into aggregations. Most fall between stable, meaning well-organized and usually provided by one publisher that communicates regularly with the subscribers, and tutti-frutti, which can include many databases by many publishers, materials other than serials, not all full-text, not easily browsable, and constantly changing without reliable notice.
Patrons want to be able to find access to all electronic serials in the online catalog, preferably on one record. An aggregator-neutral record allows for this one electronic serial record with multiple URLs to represent all the aggregators. This record will not be as specific as individual records would be, but it can allow for additional entries, such as variant titles, to maximize access. CONSER and OCLC recommend using an existing aggregator record for copy cataloging, even if it is for an aggregator a given library does not use, and adding the appropriate aggregator's URL to it rather than creating an original record. If there are multiple records, use the CONSER record.
Access to aggregations can occur outside the online catalog through Web lists, databases, and online indexes. These can be cataloged locally the same way as other electronic serials, which will provide MARC records of consistent quality. However, when aggregations contain hundreds of titles, it can become a challenge to keep current with cataloging them and difficult to maintain them. Aggregator record sets provided by the aggregator or through a service provider allow for timely cataloging and updating, but there is a cost element and removing them from the online catalog when the library no longer has access to the resources can be complicated. Other types of access include local scripting, title lists, creating a separate database, and the use of OpenURLs. Libraries can and do use a mix of these access methods beyond their own online catalog to provide electronic serial content to their patrons.
While there was a lot of material presented, the participants seemed to agree that it was helpful to have a day and a half to cover it. The additional time allowed the class to work at a slower pace, which was beneficial due to the complexity of the content. At the end of the second day, everyone seemed pleased with the presenters and what they had learned about electronic serials cataloging.
Notes
1. Steve Shadle and Les Hawkins, Electronic Serials Cataloging Workshop: Trainee Manual (Washington, DC: Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program, 2008), http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/scctp/pdf/E-ser-Trainee-2008.pdf (accessed December 7, 2009).