Present: J. Morehead, R. Watson, G. Aivazian, J. Riemer, C. Miller, N. Norris, A. Riggio, V. Bross, L. Mendes, J. Matthiesen, J. LoPear, R. McBride, R. Stumps (recorder)

Valerie Bross gave background information. She is attending a meeting on this topic next week, so she wanted feedback from the Catalogers’ Group.

History: In Feb. 2001 (after ALA Midwinter), PCC decided to move in the direction of three categories: 1) monographs; 2) serials; 3) integrating resources (IRs). Part of this is due to the revision of AACR2r chapter 12, which will hopefully be issued in 2002. PCC decided to work on documents and training ahead of time, so that people are prepared. This task group was formed; others will be formed in the future. An interim report was thus issued.

Three basic issues exist:

1. Need for documentation and training
2. Need for maintenance of records (serials and integrating resources require lots of maintenance; there is no history of maintaining IRs; many electronic resources have an ongoing aspect to them)
3. Distribution and re-distribution of records (OCLC and RLIN have both been involved in BIBCO; how would IR records get distributed back and forth between the two?; who would ultimately be responsible for the records—BIBCO or CONSER?)

Two things going on concurrently:

1. Chapter 12 (AACR2r) being revised
2. Change to MARC coding (Leader/07) may occur: m (monographs); s (serial); i (integrating resource). Question exists: which fixed field should be used for IRs: monograph or serials (i.e., should the 008 reflect serials or monograph elements)? In some cases, ISSNs are being established for IRs (ISSN is expanding its scope).

1. Which 008 should be used (serials or monographs)?

--Several people stated the opinion that using the serials fixed fields seems

to make more sense

--Louise: If we chose the serials 008, could monographic aspects be covered in an 006?

2. What has been done here in the past with IRs (loose-leafs, for ex.)?

--Luiz: Lots of loose-leafs are government documents. There are many problems with the records for these items; in the past, many of these items were minicataloged. Often done as open-ended date monographic book sets

--Renee: Maybe we should ask people at Law, since they get lots of these

--Several people mentioned we don’t get very many of these

--Jeff: Has been cataloging IRs since 1984. MGI used to bind IRs as they were received, then treat them as an edition. Updates were sometimes kept as a "clump inside a little container." No inter-collation was ever done. Sometimes he received items with the pages stuck into the volumes, but not tipped-in. Sometimes, new pages were issued as a supplement or new edition. Jeff felt these materials were not really serial in nature, since the updates didn’t receive a new number; they were simply revisions of the previous material.

--Joan: Some publishers issue update pages as supplements, so she could see IRs being serial-like

3. What do we see as our primary needs in documentation and training?

--Caroline: PCC moves very slowly; we can’t depend on them. For example, the BIBCO manual has been years in the making (Carol Hixson is involved with this). BIBCO is too spread out; CONSER is better organized.

--Janice: From the arguments presented at this meeting, feels it would be more appropriate for CONSER to cover IRs

--Louise: BIBCO doesn’t have the long-standing history of CONSER

--John: quoted some statistics: There are 40 members in both BIBCO & CONSER. In 2000, 62,000 BIBCO records were created, 67,000 in CONSER

--Caroline: Documentation and training must go hand-in-hand, otherwise this cataloging effort won’t work properly

4. Does anyone have strong feelings about the distribution/re-distribution of records?