LC Series Group Report Appendix (Cynthia Watters) ANN ERCELAWN 28 Jan 1994 00:38 UTC
From: MYRIAD::WATTERS 25-JAN-1994 13:08:26.40 To: IN%"ILL-L@UVMVM.BITNET", "AUTOCAT@UBVM.BITNET" CC: WATTERS Subj: LC Series Group report: to trace or not to trace As a guest participant in the LC Series Group, I prepared an appendix to the report that attempted to outline the implications of adopting such a proposal. This appendix was included in the report submitted to the LC Cataloging administration. However, it has been omitted from the report disseminated through various list-servs because it resided on my computer (which left Washington with me) and was not available to LC in machine-readable form. Therefore, I will attempt to distribute it myself. I am sending it to Autocat and the ILL list; if you know of other appropriate lists, please feel free to forward it to them. --Cynthia Watters, Middlebury College, watters@myriad.lib.middlebury.edu Series, traced or untraced : a view from an observer --Cynthia Watters, Middlebury College What is meant by not tracing series? What is lost or gained? What are the ramifications for the Library of Congress, other libraries, and library users across the country and beyond? Bibliographic implications: 1. Loss of series searchability Series statements would remain in the bibliographic record transcribed exactly as they appear on the item but in a field defined by the MARC format as "untraced" (490 0). Untraced, in the card catalog environment means no card is produced and filed under that series title. Some online systems and some libraries have chosen to index this field; others, equating untraced with unindexed, have not. Changing a system to index the 490 requires requires reindexing the database and is likely expensive, perhaps impossible. A library may need to change the field tag (from 490 to 440) in each record during cataloging to make the series title searchable. The 490 field lacks non-filing indicators so, even if the field is indexed, a search may need to be done both with and without the initial article; alternatively libraries may wish to remove initial articles from the series statement during cataloging. Keyword searching may bypass some of these difficulties. 2. Loss of collocation Lack of an authorized form means that even if the 490 0 field is indexed, the volumes of a series will not appear together in response to a search unless the publisher and the catalogers have recorded the series title on the item and in the record in exactly the same form for each volume. Various series with the same title will be intermixed in response to a search. For titles such as "Papers" or "Bulletin" the number of hits will likely exceed the patron's capacity for browsing. 3. Loss of see references Without authority records, the catalog will not refer the user from the form searched to the form used in the catalog. These forms vary for series titles that a) appear inconsistently from volume to volume, b) change title, c) are searched by the corporate body issuing them (e.g. Geological Survey. Bulletin see Bulletin (Geological Survey)), or d) are subseries Other implications: An advantage of the proposal is that tracing or not tracing a series is considered a local decision. Thus, LC can implement the proposed policy without violating cataloging rules or utility guidelines, and the policy does not compromise the fullness of the record as indicated in the encoding level. Gains are seen to be chiefly in the area of saving the LC cataloger's time. Series are a clear target area for simplification because 1) series authority work takes a significant amount of time, and 2) the majority of series are unlikely to be significant access points. Some series, however, are significant access points. Sometimes the series title is the only title a user knows for the work; some are cited in bibliographies and indexes by series title and volume number only. Separate cataloging under each volume title has allowed the twin advantages of retrieval by series title yet with subject access to contents of individual volumes, thus serving the needs of the neophyte searching by subject as well as the professional in the field and the user with specific citation. If series are to be controlled, a national authority file (whether created by LC or by NACO-like cooperation) is the most cost-efficient. The costs for each individual library to create and maintain separate authority files and to add series tracings to each LC record would be very high.