Present: Gia Aivazian, Sharon Benamou, Valerie Bross, Beth Feinberg, Joan LoPear, Janice Matthiesen, Renée McBride, Luiz Mendes, Jeff Morehead, Nancy Norris, Paul Priebe, Louise Ratliff, John Riemer, Angela Riggio, Rita Stumps.

BIBCO/CONSER joint meeting, May 2, 2002 (Renée)

I. CPSO update by Barbara Tillett, head of CPSO (Cataloging Policy & Support Office)
A. CPSO and IFLA are working together on several projects dealing with international standards:
1. bibliographic description
2. planning a 2003 meeting of international cataloging experts to look at possibilities for an
international cataloging code
3. a virtual international authority file

B. Jennifer Bowen (Head of Technical Services, Eastman School of Music Sibley Library) is heading a group dealing with format variation.

C. Strategic planning is going on regarding the future of AACR.

D. ALA will publish the latest AACR revisions in loose-leaf format with standard-size paper and holes. Will appear late summer 2002.

E. LCRI's
1. Sept. 1, 2002 is the target date for the release of Ch. 3 (cartographic materials) and Ch. 12
(integrating resources).
2. May 6-Sept. 1: revisions will be made that will be posted Sept. 1 on CPSO's public website,
and published in fall 2002.
3. 2002 LCRI amendments are hoped to be published in late summer 2002. Include changes to
Ch. 1, 21 and 25, and the completely redone Ch. 12.

F. CPSO Products
1. LC classification schedules are now completed. K is done and includes four new subsets for
religious law: KBR (canon law), KBU (Catholic law), KBM (Jewish law), KPP (Islamic law).
[I checked Cataloger's Desktop and found KBR and KBU, but not KBM and KPP.]
2. Classification Web will be released on June 1. Features include:
" Full text of classification schedules, including G cutters for geographic areas
" LC Subject Headings
" Correlations between LCSH and the classification schedules
" Automatic calculation of table numbers
" Ability to insert permanent personal and institutional notes into the schedules.
For more info, see: www.loc.gov/cds

II. OCLC update (Robert Bremer)
A. Generally, continuing work on moving to the new system.

B. MARC Update #2: Info about the repeatable 260 and Bib Code Lvl "i" (for integrating resources) will appear no sooner than July 2003. Less difficult updates will appear later this year.

III. Training session on integrating resources (presented by Steven Miller, UW-Milwaukee)
Miller's Power Point presentation, which is a draft and deals more with principles than details, will be posted to the BIBCO website ( http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco.html ). Since you'll be able to view the presentation on your own, I'll stick to highlights:
A. MARC 21 format changes (Bib Code Lvl "i") have been published, but not yet implemented by OCLC. This means that we catalog IR's as monographs until implementation.

B. The definition of an integrating resource is: [cf. p. 26 of presentation].

C. Some IR rules and MARC fields come from serials cataloging. These will apply mostly to loose-leaf publications, but can conceivably apply to electronic resources, so we'll need to learn and be aware of them. We have experience incorporating a serials field into monographic cataloging, i.e., the 246. It may have seemed strange at first, but we're used to it now, and the same will surely be true with IR's.

D. Cataloging overview: what will be new and different
1. AACR2: We'll use Ch. 12 for all IR's, plus any other chapters relevant to the predominant
type of resource content, e.g. a cartographic website would use Ch. 3 & 9.
2. "Integrated entry" cataloging is the most radical change. This means that the bibliographic
description will change over time to reflect the latest iteration of the resource (like "latest
entry" cataloging of serials). [cf. p. 9 for more info]
3. MARC tagging using what have historically been serials fields:
" 247 = former title
" 310 = frequency of updates (most relevant for loose-leaf publications)
" 321 = former frequency
" 362 1_ = dates of publication not from first or last iteration of the resource
" 547 = former title complexity note
" 550 = issuing body information
4. Subject headings should be broad enough to encompass changing subject content.

Once Miller's presentation is on the BIBCO website, if you find something that you believe differs from AACR standards, let Valerie or me know and we'll pass along the information.

IV. LCRI PCC option decisions (led by Judy Kuhagen)
On April 23 we received an e-mail from John containing questions regarding PCC practice for several LCRI's. These questions, as well as 2 others, were voted on by attendees at the joint BIBCO/CONSER meeting. I'll report on those votes here, as well as include related comments that came up at the next day's BIBCO Operations Committee, which opened with Ana Cristán (head of BIBCO) leading a follow-up discussion on these votes.

A. Bibliographic relationships involving integrating resources: How will those relationships be expressed in bibliographic records?

OPTIONS:
1. Follow LC practice: no reciprocal linking notes on bib records representing relationships between IR's. Instead, a bibliographic history note and, when appropriate, a related work added entry.
2. Follow revised rule 12.7B8 (not yet published): give reciprocal linking notes on both bib records (following serials practice).

VOTE: Follow revised rule 12.7B8.

BIBCO meeting comments: This may be an unfortunate case where LC and PCC practices will differ. Judy Kuhagen will try to get LC to revisit the issue.

B. "Item described" note for IR's: For remote access resources, should previous "viewed on" information be retained in the record when more current information is added?

OPTIONS:
1. Follow revised rule 12.7B23 (and LC practice): replace existing "viewed on" information
with current "viewed on" information when updating the record.
2. Establish a different PCC practice.

VOTE: Follow revised rule 12.7B23.

C. Uniform titles for integrating resources: Should the policy for IR's be the same as the policy for serials or as for monographs as stated in LCRI 25.5B, which has not been revised?

OPTIONS:
1. Follow LC practice: apply 25.5B for monographs.
2. Follow serial practice and create a UT with a qualifier whenever there is a conflict.

VOTE: Follow LC practice.

BIBCO meeting comments: group agreed with vote to follow LC practice, but wants to hold off implementing it until a CONSER decision is made about ????????????

D. "Item described" note for multipart items: Should a "latest issue consulted" note be given on the collected set bibliographic record for a multipart item and then updated each time a later part is received?

OPTIONS:
1. Follow LC practice: do not include a "latest issue consulted" note; the angle brackets in the 300 will indicate all parts consulted. (LC puts holdings info in the bib record.)
2. Give a "latest issue consulted" note and update it when a later part is received.

VOTE: None of the above. The vote was that there be no PCC statement on practice and that this be decided on an institution-by-institution basis. This will be clarified in the BIBCO Participants' Manual, which will differentiate between LCRI's and LC practice.

E. Introductory words and titles proper for motion pictures/videorecordings: Will PCC libraries apply the second paragraph of rule 1.1B1 when cataloging motion pictures/videorecordings? (Rule: Do not transcribe words that serve as an introduction and are not intended to be part of the title …)

Related question: Does PCC want to retain LCRI 7.1B1 as a statement of PCC practice? (LCRI: When credits for performer, author, director, producer, "presenter," etc., precede or follow the title in the chief source, in general do not consider them as part of the title proper, even though the language used integrates the credits with the title.)

OPTIONS:
1. Apply rule 1.1B1 to motion pictures, videorecordings, electronic resources, and popular journals.
2. Expand the above practice to materials covered by other chapters.
3. Restrict the above practice.

VOTE: Apply the rule and expand it to include at least cartographic materials. Reissue LCRI 7.1B1 as a statement of PCC practice, with wording that gives guidance, but leaves leeway.

BIBCO meeting comment: Apply LCRI 1.1B1 with the proviso that no Ch. 25 (UT's) rules are broken in the process.

F. Should the option in revised rule 1.4F8 be applied to supply a beginning and/or ending date when the first and/or last iteration is not available?

OPTIONS:
1. Follow LC practice: do not give beginning and/or ending date if first and/or last iteration is not available.
2. Follow LC practice for serials, but not for IR's and multipart items (with some guidelines).

VOTE: No decision made. There was much discussion about the implications of applying different practices to serials and IR's. [VB want to say something here?] Jean Hirons, Ana Cristán and Judy Kuhagen will write an explanation of the issues, with examples and discussing pros and cons, to appear in late May.

G. Relates to MARC 21, not cataloging rules. It's important that there be a common understanding about the MARC field used for notes on title variations other than a change in title proper. Decisions was made to use the 246 for all title variations other than a change in title proper, as opposed to using a 247 (former title)/547 (former title complexity note) combination.

V. Robert Bremer of OCLC talked about an OCLC model for future expansion of authorities contribution, noting that everything is subject to change and OCLC wants feedback.

Bremer began with a brief history of OCLC authority control. Noting that 1994 is the last time global changes were made. He discussed what types of functionality are needed in conjunction with OCLC's new platform:
" automatic global correction
" need for links between bib records and authority records
" there is great interest in having multiple authority files (e.g. name, series, subject) with links between files
" have individual libraries participate in file maintenance.
A big idea OCLC is batting around right now is of deriving authority records from bib records when there is no NACO record. Possibilities include:
" having a default to display only the parts of an authority record one wants
" do merging to avoid duplicate records
" have an 042 code to clearly flag a record as derived, not NACO
" Since LCCN's are needed for local use, perhaps assign LCCN's with a new prefix as another way of flagging derived records.
" 670 quoting OCLC bib control #
" 910's recording every form found in the bibliographic file, not all of which will be in 4xx fields, which must follow NACO standards. Here's where a default to suppress display of the 910's might be desirable.

Discussion:
" Would Dublin Core records spawn derived authority records? Answer: Perhaps it's better to have a CORC authority file?
" All authority records would be included, i.e., name, conference, corporate, series, subject.
" There is no timeline in place.

VI. Kate Harcourt (Columbia University) reported on a project she and Becky Culbertson (UCSD)
worked on together. They created an aggregator list intended to help catalogers discover sources of MARC cataloging copy for individual titles in online databases or from vendors. The site is a prototype, a model of what can exist. They want the site to be interactive so that PCC libraries can annotate the list to indicate that they have cataloged or created a record set, and they want the maintenance of this resource to become a collective effort on the part of all PCC libraries. The project was heartily endorsed by the meeting attendees. Can be found at: http://library.ucsd.edu/~becky/AggregatorList.htm

BIBCO Operations Committee meeting, May 3, 2002 (Renée)

I. Opened with follow-up discussion of the previous day's meeting. A basic issue and concern was harmony of serials and IR practice and implications for training. The general opinion was that consistency is the most important aspect of PCC's success in the area of cataloging IR's. Whether we follow monographic or serials cataloging rules is not the issue; a consistent approach is.

A very important point was made: that the line is blurring between serials and monographic cataloging. IR records require maintenance, so monographic catalogers will have to become accustomed to the idea of touching a title more than once. It would be shortsighted for PCC to try to make monographic catalogers' lives easier by not subjecting them to serials fields. We need to accept that the cataloging world is changing.

I have to say that much of the discussion about training monographic catalogers to catalog IR's expressed the feeling that monocats, as a rule, were either incapable of or unreasonably resistant to learning to use serials fields. And this was among BIBCO, not CONSER, people. Perhaps it would be helpful for monographic catalogers to think of all MARC fields as simply bibliographic fields, rather than slapping labels on them.

II. Role of BIBCO Operations Committee in IR and at-large training
If this seems a little stream-of-consciousness, it was.

A. Most immediately, put Steven Miller's IR training presentation as is on the BIBCO website and improve it over time. His presentation will also be posted on the OLAC website.

B. There will be an IR informational session at ALA's BIBCO-at-Large meeting.

C. Judy Kuhagen, looking toward the future, would like to see IR training made available to all, moving beyond the PCC world, and would like BIBCO training to be free.

D. Alice Jacobs (NLM) suggested PCC work with library schools to stress the importance of bibliographic skills. Suggested BIBCO Operational Committee members attend library school meetings at ALA.

E. ALA has a new training/educational arm through ALCTS, and PCC has been working on cooperating with this group for the past two years.

F. There's a need for more emphasis on subject cataloging and authority training by PCC. Ruta Penkiunas (LC, retiring in one month) noted that SACO training falls fully on a small group at LC, and she has presented a proposal advocating using trainers, reviewers and subject specialists from PCC libraries.

G. PCC training has always assumed their trainees know the basics of cataloging and have gone from there. They have found this not to be so, that basic cataloging training is very often needed.

H. BIBCO liaisons are trainers/contacts within their institutions. Might they be able to go out and train?

I. Suggestion to partner with state and regionals library groups.

J. Because of the BIBCO Operations Committee's turnover (members serve 2-3 year terms), it would be difficult to provide continuity in training. So how about a call to BIBCO members for people who would like to train? And for people to send the Committee suggestions regarding training needs?

K. Practical point: PCC is part of LC and thus dependent on LC's budget, so there are limits as to how much training it can provide.

III. Discussion of PCC's Strategic and Tactical plans: not a lot to report here, as it was primarily an editing process. One enlightening remark: too much preaching for core records has put people off, caused misunderstanding, and harmed the PCC program, and PCC needs to avoid that approach.

IV. Review/editing of BIBCO Participants' Manual, ed. by Carol Hixson and Ana Cristán
Again, nothing much to report, as it was a section-by-section editing job, but a few points:
A. It's a rather general document, not as detailed as the CONSER manual, and never intended to be.
B. Timeline: hopefully the manual will be turned over to LC by ALA; then a final review period via the PCC list; make the edits; all further revisions would then be LC's, not Carol's, concern.
C. It is planned to incorporate the Manual into Catalogers' Desktop.

If you'd like to take a look at the documents I've mentioned today and learn more about PCC's goals, go to: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/opco02.html

Announcements from John:

John will make arrangement for everyone to receive paper copies of the latest OTNG report so that we can discuss it and what happens if we go out on RFP.

The ACCM will be reporting about Pinyin records of which there are two groups. With "chi" in the 041 but not in 008 and there is a 987 $d r meaning review (which is set back to u or c) making up one group. When chi is in the 008 we are NOT supposed to edit the record.

Regarding the Classification Web Sharon Farb is trying to find out more about the correct licensing etc.

Stephen Davison has said that he likes the APAM Project Committee's recommendations and wants to implement them.

Janice, Renee and John have also been working on the Frontera digital collection of sound recordings.

OAI Sheet Music Project Data Mapping group made John their new chair. Congratulations!!!

Shared Program Steering Committee is discussing the single record technique and whether it should be applied to monographic (non-database) cataloging.

John got clearance to order a new laptop for the department.

Submitted by Joan Flintoff LoPear May 10, 2002