CONSER Update

Abstract

The Cooperative Online Serials (CONSER) Program plays an important leadership role in the serials cataloging community. This session provided an overview of the history and functions of the program. Also covered were discussions of some issues and projects of current interest, including recent training efforts, a cooperative cataloging project focused on open-access journals, machine-readable cataloging (MARC) coding changes, and Research Description and Access (RDA) testing. In the final portion of the program, a librarian from a CONSER-member library presented a model for applying the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model to serials cataloging. As a part this practical application of FRBR, the creation of a serials authority record was recommended.

Keywords:

• Cooperative Online Serials (CONSER) Program
• continuing resources
• cooperative cataloging
• metadata
• machine-readable cataloging (MARC) coding
• bibliographic model
• Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)

In this session, two Cooperative Online Serials (CONSER) Program staff members, Hien Nguyen and Les Hawkins, and a librarian from a CONSER-member library, Adolfo Tarango, presented information on the program's purposes as well as covering some issues of current interest to serials catalogers. Nguyen provided an in-depth overview of the CONSER Program, its documentation, services to members, and training program, the Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program (SCCTP). Hawkins described some recent developments including the Open Access Journal Project, implementation of new machine-readable cataloging (MARC) 21 coding, and resources related to the testing of Resource Description and Access (RDA). Tarango provided an original model for shaping the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) to produce meaningful displays of metadata for continuing resources.

OVERVIEW OF THE CONSER PROGRAM

Nguyen discussed the history of the CONSER Program, which began in the early 1970s as a project to convert card cataloging for serials into machine-readable records, and has evolved into an ongoing program to create and maintain high quality bibliographic records for serials. In October 1997, CONSER became a bibliographic component of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC).

CONSER celebrated its thirty-fifth anniversary in 2008. Today, the program continues to grow and adapt to changes in membership and the bibliographic environment. When CONSER began in 1973, much of the cataloging input and maintenance was done by staff at the Library of Congress (LC). Today the cataloging and maintenance are the cooperative responsibilities of all CONSER institutions.

The primary product of the CONSER Program is the set of over one million records created, edited, and authenticated by CONSER members. The CONSER database is available electronically for purchase as a MARC Distribution Service (MDS) file from the Library of Congress Cataloging Distribution Service and is known as the MDS-serials file. Subscribers of the MDS-serials file include several integrated library system (ILS) vendors, providers of publication access management systems, and other service providers that rely on knowledgebases covering continuing resources. The CONSER database includes records with International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) assignments and U.S. Newspaper Program cataloging.

CONSER balances the need to stay compliant with changing cataloging standards with keeping a practical point of view in serving users. One example of this is the provider neutral record guidelines developed in the early 2000s for electronic serials as a practical solution to the problem of multiple records for essentially the same resource. The guidelines have worked well and have been expanded to electronic monographs and integrating resources. Another example is the CONSER standard record (CSR) which was created in 2006 to provide records to better meet user needs. As with other CONSER cataloging practices, CSR is an evolving standard, to be enhanced when needed. The CSR model was followed when PCC prescribed a minimum set of data elements for a Monographic Bibliographic Record Cooperative Program (BIBCO) standard record in 2009.

CONSER defines and documents its cataloging practices and guidelines in two publications, the CONSER Editing Guide (CEG) and the CONSER Cataloging Manual (CCM). CONSER cataloging practices are supported by Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs) and proposals for change in MARC 21 coding when necessary. The CONSER website includes excerpts and latest updates from these publications and the entire stand-alone CSR guidelines.

Currently there are nearly seventy institutions in the CONSER program, including funnel and special project members. CONSER membership includes the national libraries of the United States, Canada, and Wales; the U.S. and Canadian ISSN centers; university, government, research, special, and public libraries; and several corporations. CONSER has several levels of membership: full, associate, enhance, funnel, affiliate, and individual. The different levels of membership reflect the unique contributions that a diverse membership makes to the program.

CONSER shares its practices not just with its own membership but also with the general serials community through CONSER's training program, known as the Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program. SCCTP provides standardized training materials and qualified trainers in the field of continuing resources. Rather than providing the actual training workshops, SCCTP relies on library associations, networks, and institutions to sponsor workshops, using SCCTP materials and a team of trainers. SCCTP training materials are free for download from the CONSER website and can be used for workshops and individual instruction. The goal is to increase the pool of knowledgeable serials and integrating resources catalogers and raise the quality of cataloging records contributed to shared databases so the audience for SCCTP workshops has always been beyond just CONSER members. SCCTP offers five full workshops: the Basic Serials Cataloging Workshop, the Advanced Serials Cataloging Workshop, the Electronic Serials Cataloging Workshop, the Integrating Resources Cataloging Workshop, and the Serials Holdings Workshop.

A group of dedicated trainers reviews and evaluates course materials to make them more effective and up-to-date. In 2010, with their help, CONSER offered three SCCTP workshops for free during the American Library Association Annual Conference in Washington, DC. Margaret Mering of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and Adolfo R. Tarango of the University of California–San Diego presented the Advanced Serials Cataloging Workshop at a well-attended session, featuring newly revised training material that included elements contained in the CONSER standard record, new coding practice, and MARC 21 fields. Shana L. McDanold of the University of Pennsylvania and Jian Wang of Portland State University presented the Integrating Resources Cataloging Workshop, which had also been revised to include explanation of a provider neutral record for electronic integrating resources. Having also converted the training materials for online learning as part of the revision, these same instructors presented this workshop as a series of webinars in April 2010. Wen-ying Lu of the University of Colorado–Boulder and Everett Allgood of New York University presented the Serials Holdings Workshop to an active and appreciative group of attendees. The Serials Holdings Workshop was the first to be adapted for online delivery. With the success of the SCCTP online courses, CONSER has also begun to offer webinars on various topics to its members who are not able to attend CONSER meetings in person.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CONSER

Hawkins discussed some recent developments for the CONSER Program. CONSER launched the Open Access Journal Project after discussion at the CONSER/BIBCO Operations Meeting (OpCo Meeting) May 6–7, 2010. The project is a systematic approach to making CONSER records available for the journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The project is a result of many discussions over the years in CONSER about cooperatively providing comprehensive coverage of targeted e-journal packages. The rationale for the project involves the MDS-serials file, the file of all CONSER records distributed to companies that produce link resolvers, electronic resource access and management systems, and other electronic resource management systems. Vendors use the file to update their products and many libraries are customers of these services.

The project also supports open-access publishing initiatives and delivery of open-access resources on academic campuses. Advantages of focusing on the DOAJ group of open-access journals include the availability of ISSN information for the journals (print or electronic ISSN are required for listing in DOAJ). Journals in this collection are scholarly and require peer or editorial review to be listed and are therefore of research interest. The journals in DOAJ have no embargo period so that there is immediate access to all issues. DOAJ journals are highly cited and several CONSER libraries have noted their heavy use through link resolvers.

Recent changes in MARC 21 coding include the implementation of the 588 field for the source of description note, new codes o and q for the form of original item and form of item fixed fields (008/22 and 008/23), and several new fields in the bibliographic and authority formats to support RDA testing. A complete listing of new MARC 21 coding implemented recently by the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) is available. ¹

Proposals for field 588 and new codes for the fixed fields 008/22 and 008/23 derived from various working groups of the PCC. The CONSER Standard Record Working Group originally proposed field 588 as a way to prioritize note fields in CONSER records where notes are given in numeric order. The field is used primarily for recording “description based on” and “latest issue consulted” notes and allows these notes to be displayed at the end of the note fields in records. Since these notes are more often of interest to catalogers than general readers of the record, it allows placement of the notes in a less obtrusive location in the record.

The new code o (defined as online) and code q (defined as direct electronic) in the 008/22 and 008/23 fields were proposed by the PCC Standing Committee on Standards. Previously the only code defined for the fields was s, which refers generally to electronic resources whether they are online or direct. The more specific codes o and q provide a means to limit by type of electronic resource in searching.

There are a number of websites that provide information about the timeline, protocol, documentation, and training material for the RDA test being conducted in the coming months by LC, the National Library of Medicine, and the National Agricultural Library. Sources for RDA test information are included in the “Additional Resources” section below.

THE WORK SEGMENT RECORD: A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO APPLYING FRBR CONCEPTS FOR CATALOGING SERIALS

In the final portion of the presentation, Tarango discussed practical applications of FRBR. FRBR presents a theoretical model placing bibliographic entities in a hierarchical structure of works, expressions, manifestations, and items. The model, however, does not provide instruction on applying that construct in any practical way for cataloging serials. Over the years, several individuals and groups have attempted to develop practical application of this FRBR construct to serials. For bibliographic records, these attempts have applied FRBR very literally, that is, to develop cataloging practices by which one creates separate work, expression, and manifestation records.

The model presented here departs from past efforts by not calling for separate work, expression, and manifestation records. Instead, this model first characterizes the entire historical run of a serial through its major changes as the FRBR work. Secondly, expressions and manifestations that reflect a major change are grouped together as a “work segment.” Third, the work segment is the entity cataloged. Last, this construct supports the creation of a serial authority record for the serial work representing the entire historical run of the serial.

Figure 1 shows an abstraction of the model for a serial. Diagramed are three serial works: Serial Work 1, Serial Work 2, and Serial Work 3. Each serial work has expressions, labeled E, and each expression has manifestations, labeled M. Serial Work 1 is the historic run of a serial which had a single major change, going from Title A to Title B. A split then occurs, resulting in the two new serial works, 2 and 3. For purposes of this abstract model, this is a particular type of split where there is a major change occurring simultaneously with numbering restarting with v. 1, no. 1 or a similar numbering restart. Note the “work segments” groupings; these groupings of expressions and manifestations are what will be cataloged. A catalog record for Work Segment 1 contains descriptive elements for all the expressions and manifestations for the serial as Title A. The record for Work Segment 2 does the same for all the expressions and manifestations of the serial issued under Title B, and so forth.

FIGURE 1 Cataloging model.

The serial authority record (SAR) is the authority record for the serial work, representing the historical run of the serial through its major changes (see Figure 2). It lists the authorized form entries for each work segment of the serial work, the entities cataloged. You can see from this model that the concepts of work, expression, and manifestation are important for understanding and mapping the relationships between serial entities, but they are not needed for creating a practical model for day-to-day cataloging.

FIGURE 2 Abstract serial authority record.

As shown in Figure 2, there are at least three required components to a serial authority record in this model:

•	a standard identifier, also referred to below as an authority record number (ARN)
•	the authorized headings for each work segment
•	linking entries to other serial works due to splits, mergers, absorptions, separations, and supplements

At the present, other data shown are proposed to be optional, but may be determined to be required in the future. For example, the beginning and ending date designations and some notes, like the 670 and 675 fields currently used in authority records, may prove to be important enough to be required. Similarly subfield l, the linking ISSN, is not currently defined to serve as a standard identifier for a work segment, but if so defined in the future, it would be required if available.

Figure 3 shows a real serial mapped to this authority record structure with a made-up ARN. There are five major title changes represented with five authorized work segment titles; one is a name/title entry; and one title has been absorbed. Making increased use of existing display indicators in authority records has the potential to vastly improve public displays and the overall usefulness of records to users. For example, to help a researcher searching for the second title, Monthly Review of Agricultural, Industrial, Trade and Financial Conditions in the Sixth Federal Reserve District, display indicators in the SAR support the public display given in Figure 4. This shows a statement about the title searched, followed by a chronological display of the historical run of the serial. Titles are displayed with their publication history. Entries for titles held by a library are hyperlinked based on indicator coding; those not held, the third entry illustrated, are not hyperlinked. Each link goes to a corresponding catalog record.

FIGURE 3 Serial authority record example.

FIGURE 4 Public display for serials authority record.

There are other ways a public display can be designed to better serve users. For example, for the third title, which this figure shows as not hyperlinked and presumably not owned, the display could have added text at the end explicitly stating “Not held by library, order via Interlibrary Loan.” The text could be hyperlinked to take the user to an interlibrary loan request form populated with data from this entry. More immediately, a display like this resolves some issues public service librarians and catalogers have raised with successive entry cataloging versus latest entry cataloging. In successive entry cataloging previous and later titles are shown in separate linked records. Researchers cannot get a full picture of the entire run of the serial from one record, as is the case with latest entry cataloging, and if there is a break in holdings, such as with the third title here, the chain from one title change to the other is broken.

Moving to the bibliographic record, Figure 5 is an example record for the fifth title from the authority record example above. This record is a composite of eight OCLC records—two print, one CD-ROM, four microform, and one online record—consolidated into a single work segment record. In this example, data found in every record is in bold font, data found only in some records is in italic font. The main point illustrated here is that we have very valuable data and access points scattered among records that are pertinent to the resources described in all these records. One may question the overall value of these added data and access points, but it is clear that a cataloger made a choice to add them, and having done so, why not leverage that benefit for all? In the current cataloging environment it is not cost effective to enrich each record separately, eight of them in this example. Like user-supplied tags, access points lead researchers to needed content. Here you can see how this cataloging model permits us to leverage data and access points to get content to the researcher and provide useful displays.

FIGURE 5 Bibliographic record example.

In creating such a record, catalogers would generally follow the rules as outlined in the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2) with the following additional guidelines that account for the fact that the record represents multiple expressions and manifestations:

1.	Record the ISSNs of each format of a work segment in repeated 022 fields. Add the format, if known, in separate subfield.
2.	Record the title of original manifestation in the 245 field. If different from the work segment title as found in serial authority record, also record the work segment title in a 130 field. Always consider the print version the original manifestation whether in hand or known from another source. Absent print, prefer another physical version over the online version.
3.	Record title variants of all other formats of the work segment in 246 fields, use subfield i for clarity as needed.
4.	In the 260 field, record publication information for the manifestation selected for the 245 field.
5.	Record publication data for other formats in a 533 field note. If additional publication data needs to be recorded, record it in a note in the style: [Format] issued by: [alternate issuing body data].
6.	Do not record issuing data for third-party, online providers.
7.	When a specific format ceases but the publication continues to be published in other formats, do not close out the record, instead provide the data in a note: 500 ## Print publication ceased with [designation].
8.	Code all 856 fields for online versions as first indicator 4 and second indicator 0.

As catalogers continue to struggle with increasing workloads and declining staff levels and strive to increase services to users, this model presents various advantages and opportunities. It maximizes access to content; it facilitates navigation; it exposes many more relationships; and it increases cataloging efficiencies as we work together enriching a single record.

CONCLUSION

Hawkins and Nguyen's descriptions of the CONSER Program's history, training programs, and recent projects provided audience members with useful information on what the program has done and is doing for the serials cataloging community. Tarango's proposed model for applying FRBR to serials cataloging gave some food for thought on how FRBR may shape how cataloging is done and how catalog displays may look. As the cataloging community looks to the future, topics like the ones discussed in this session will continue to be important.

Notes

1. OCLC, “OCLC-MARC Format Update 2010, including RDA Changes,” Technical Bulletin 258 (May 2010), http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/258/default.htm(accessed July 16, 2010).