the catalog record and automated union listing

The Catalog Record and Automated Union Listing

Elizabeth Hood

H o o d is catalog librarian/serials at Tr in i ty Universi ty in San Antonio, Texas.

In the past few years, librarians working in the area of union lists of serials have debated whether the basic funct ion of a union list is to serve as a source of bibl iographic identification or to provide location and holdings data. Tradit ional- ly union lists of serials have been viewed as finding tools for holdings data and have contained little bibliographic data. Although the two functions are not necessarily mutual ly exclusive, 1 emphasizing one funct ion or the other changes the nature of a list considerably and therefore affects the way a list is ult imately used by l ibrary s taff members and patrons. In many lists, the absence of standard bibliographic data and access points severely limits the usefulness for bibliographic identif ication, and in a few lists the absence of complete holdings data or the use of nonstandard data restricts the location funct ion.

Some of our best known colleagues have alter- nately stressed one or the other function. For example, Ruth Carter notes, in an article published in Serials Review in 1981, "The purpose of a union list must be kept in mind. Its essential purpose is to be a f inding tool. "2 But in an article written with Florence McKenna in 1985, Carter states that union listing funct ions at the Univers i ty of Pittsburgh libraries were located in the Cataloging Department when the fo rmer Serials Depar tment was abandoned, in "...clear recognit ion that a union list is a bibliographic tool and that its natural aff i l iat ion is with other bibliographic activities, in this case, cataloging. ''3

Far f rom demonstrat ing an internal conflict over the basic funct ion of union listing, such com- ments demonstrate that the two functions are as

SERIALS REVIEW N U M B E R 1 - 2 1988 31

inseparable as the two sides of one coin. If "the most basic funct ion served by a union list is to show what l ibrary owns what part of a title, "4 then the title must be proper ly identif ied biblio- graphically, and holdings informat ion must be complete, accurate, and current . The two types of data must be easily connected to each other as well. N.L. Schultz Baldwin reported that one stumbling block in developing the British Columbia Union Catalog Project 's serials catalog was relating separate record keeping o f bibliographic and holdings data. 5

The fact that the role of the bibliographic record in union listing is not clearly def ined reflects the ambivalence with which librarians have approached even the names of their union lists. Although many lists funct ion as single l ibrary periodicals holdings lists, that is, they provide holdings and location informat ion alone, they have seldom been called "union lists of periodical holdings." Perhaps union list editors have assumed that the basic funct ion of their lists is to record the extent of holdings in contr ibut ing libraries. Certainly older, smaller, more local lists have presented very little bibliographic data, providing little more iden- t if ication of a publicat ion than its title (sometimes only its current title) or other main entry and title. Holdings have received greater emphasis, even if they may have been summary or nonstandard in nature. Dianne Ellsworth reports that a survey of contr ibutors to the California Union List of Periodicals (CULP), conducted soon af ter that project was under taken by the California Library Author i ty for Systems and Services (CLASS) in 1978, revealed that the most important concern of contr ibutors was cur rency of holdings data. a

Fur ther confusion about the scope of union lists has been caused by the defini t ions of the terms "serial" and "periodical." Librarians of ten have d i f f icul ty determining what material to include in union lists. Di f fe ren t libraries def ine the terms d i f ferent ly , and many make a distinction in cataloging t reatment , classification, shelving location, and other inhouse processing. Other libraries make such distinctions on the basis of whether a publication is on subscription and send reports of bibliographic and holdings data to union list editors based on their internal t reatment, which is def ined by the method of acquisition. Compounding this problem of scope are the occasional titles that change f requency in such a way as to fall into, or out of, any given def ini t ion of "periodical" or "serial." Contr ibut ing libraries may f ind they are able to send bibliographic data that are more or less complete , or no data other than titles, based on any of these considerations.

And do we create "union lists" or "union catalogs?" Is the d i f fe rence in bibliographic content

real or apparent? Most publications of this sort in the Uni ted States have been called "union lists," even when they contain a significant amount of bibliographic data. Outside the Uni ted States this is not the case. Jean Whiff in argues that the term "union list" is less prevalent internationally, that it o f ten implies a simple title listing with bibliographic data inadequate to pe r fo rm basic serials funct ions, and that the term is becoming obsolete in the online environment since it implies a printed toolff The term "union catalog," on the other hand, acknowledges the increasingly important role of the bibliographic record in union listing, which more and more has come to rely on automated mul t i -purpose databases built on the foundat ion of the MA RC standard machine-readable catalog record.

The changing relationship in union listing between the bibliographic record and the holdings record can be seen clearly in the larger union lists, especially the ones that are national or international in scope. The introductions of the three editions of Union List of Serials in the Libraries of the United States and Canada, published in 1924-1926, 1943, and 1965, contained scope notes for dates of coverage and titles included; sample entries ex- plaining holdings notations and symbols indicating inclusion of titles in various editions; a description of manual editorial steps; and the extent of the numbers of entries, title changes, and cross- referen- ces. There was no explanation of the amount or type of bibliographic informat ion given in each entry or a descript ion of the decision process used in creating a syndetic system.

The introduct ion to New Serial Titles, 1950- 1970 cumulative, br ief ly described both form of en t ry and bibliographic descript ion used, in addition to coverage and holdings statements. With the 1981 edit ion of New Serial Titles, bibliographic data were drawn f rom CONSER files, although holdings data for report ing libraries were not available in a standard format that could be linked to the bibliographic records. Reliance on machine-readable catalog records for bibliographic descript ion had become so attractive that only the location symbols of contr ibut ing libraries were presented, and the extent of holdings in each l ibrary were omitted. Format and bibliographic practices, as well as cross- re ference structure, were described in the introduc- tion, but a descript ion of holdings statements received only two sentences. Indeed, there was little to say about holdings, since informat ion on the extent of holdings in contr ibut ing libraries was lacking. This situation has led some librarians to conclude that New Serial Titles no longer funct ions as a union list at all. s Dorothy Glasby of the Library of Congress noted at a 1981 workshop on union lists of serials presented at the annual conference

32 SERIALS REVIEW N U M B E R 1-2 1988

of the American Library Association that the decision at LC was for New Serial Titles to become a cataloging tool, thus changing its emphasis. 9

Librarians involved in serials union listing have come to recognize the importance of accurate bibliographic data, even to the point of causing one prominent union listing expert, Jean Whiff in, to conclude that we have neglected the holdings reporting function of union lists. 1° Perhaps it is accurate to say that we have taken advantage of vastly improved bibliographic access to serials, access created primarily for purposes other than union listing and based on improved standardization of bibliographic description and data communications methods. Because holdings content and holdings communications standards have developed more slowly, holdings records have not received as much emphasis.

There are several reasons for this changing relationship between bibliographic and holdings data in union lists. First is the increased likeli- hood of identical title entries as lists grow in size. Serial literature has been expanding at an ever- increasing rate. The number of libraries contributing to union lists, especially at the state and regional levels, has grown as well. These two factors alone increase the chances of identical entry points for different publications. Moreover, although traditional union lists have not utilized cataloging codes as a standard for the bibliographic data included, they have often chosen currently accepted entry rules as the point of entry for holdings information. Sometimes this practice has been formally stated as, for example, in the intro- duction to New Serial Titles, 1950-1970 cumulative. xl As libraries have brought their internal records into conformity with the AACR2's rule for choice of entry under corporate body (21.1B2), many titles formerly called "generic" and entered under a corporate main entry have become primary access points as titles proper. More bibliographic detail is needed to distinguish between identical titles of two or more distinct publications.

Second, New Serial Titles has increasingly come to be viewed as a source for confirming bibliographic details. At the same time, the use of automated interlibrary loan systems, the prolifera- tion of state and regional union lists, and the appropriately heavy reliance on nearby sources for interlibrary loan have tended to diminish the need for New Serial Titles as a source of holdings information.

Finally, it is now logistically impossible to compile comprehensive lists manually, even if it were still economically attractive. Although union listing via automated methods has been ac- complished for many years, such methods as word processing and text editing are still labor-intensive

and require inputting entries as fully as list editors and participants decide. Insofar as these records are nonstandard, they cannot be shared or manipulated by other systems. If they are not tagged to sort on individual pieces of data, if alphabetizing is done by manually assigning a numerical sequence, if cross-references and bibliographic data are not adequate, or if data display is limited (for example, upper case only), 12 it is difficult, if not impossible, to use the data for any purpose other than the original list, even if the information is in a machine- readable medium. Even so, in some circumstances the nonstandard-based, automation-assisted list has been viewed as an attractive option, particularly when many list participants have no access to a bibliographic utility, or when the union list is small or relatively local, or when manipulation of MARC data is impossible because of limited financial or computing resources, is

In a great number of cases union list projects large and small have come to rely on bibliographic data records available through library utilities' databases as a basic source for identifying locally held titles and for recording holdings. Use of MARC bibliographic records in utilities enables union listing projects to avoid inputting bibliographic data for most of the titles in their lists. The utilities contain a large number of high quality serial bibliographic records, especially as a result of the CONSER Project. These records are created and authenticated according to national standards of form and content. Other records in the utility databases are of variable but increasingly reliable quality. The quality control mechanisms of the utilities vary, as do the expertise and resources of libraries that contribute non-CONSER catalog records to the utility databases. However, guidelines for selecting bibliographic records enable union list project editors or participants to choose with relative ease the records that correctly describe the titles for which holdings information is being reported.

Although the method of attaching local holdings to bibliographic records differs from utility to utility, the basic principle is the same. A MARC-coded catalog record is used to identify a publication. Union list agencies or participating libraries modify the record according to local bibliographic use. Holdings records are attached to, or tagged within, the record. Because local use does not permanently change the original catalog record, many libraries can use a bibliographic record, and local information (e.g., holdings) of several libraries can be pulled together and associated with that record. The bibliographic record and associated holdings can be written onto a machine-readable medium, such as magnetic tape, to generate of f line products, or members of the union list may have access to each other's data online. 14

SERIALS REVIEW NUMBER 1-2 1988 33

Record selection is not always simple. A correct record must be selected from a large database of bibliographic records. The access point for a given title may yield multiple records for publications with identical titles or "duplicate" records for the same title. Selection entails carefully following guidelines for choosing the correct record, as well as upgrading or inputting bibliographic data for titles lacking adequate description. Selection, however, is the only major step required for most of the titles in a utility-based union list; with other methods of list compilation, decisions are required on choice and form of entry for every title. Using utility bibliographic records offers the advantage of a measure of standardization of entry choice and form, as well as multiple options for descriptive content. And all these advantages in quality control, completeness of description, and access come without keying any bibliographic data, but merely with selecting the appropriate record.

The availability of Library Services and Con- struction Act (LSCA) and Higher Education Act (HEA) Title II--C funding for many union list projects has been a factor in the growth of union listing via bibliographic utilities, although it is seldom mentioned. Though there are certain restrictions on these grants, they have enabled many groups of libraries in the United States to take advantage of the union listing features of the bibliographic utilities, something which might have been outside the financial reach of many union list projects. The ongoing cost of maintaining union lists in the utilities' databases usually is not funded by these grants, but the initial costs involved in selecting bibliographic records and inputting holdings records have been covered in many cases.

The impact of the availability of complete, standardized MARC records for serials is by no means limited to the library utilities. As these records become more widely used outside the utility environment, we may well witness the creation of union lists independent of the utilities. At the 1986 International Federation of Library Associa- tion (IFLA) conference, Peter Jacso of Computer Applications and Services Co., Budapest, Hungary, described a UNESCO-developed program, MICRO- ISIS, designed to perform annotated serials rou- tines including an online catalog for up to thirty thousand titles, using a microcomputer and MARC bibliographic data. 15 It is likely that this and other programs will be further developed and come to include union list functions. Some commercial vendors provide MARC-based union list services as well. At the present time, the ready availability and ease of use of the utilities' databases, cou- pled with interlibrary loan advantages, make union

listing via MARC-based bibliographic utilities ex- tremely attractive.

In summary, the online availability of high quality bibliographic data to which the serial holdings of union list participants may be attached has revo- lutionized our approach to union list production and has resulted in a much heavier emphasis upon the bibliographic identification and description of publications. The following factors have contributed to this shift in emphasis: 1) increasing standardization in content and form of bibliographic data as a result of using AACR2 and MARC formats; 2) a large body of data developed in conformity with these standards and identified as authenticated because of the CONSER Project; 3) the necessity of including more bibliographic data to identify publications, because of the increasing size of union list projects, larger serial collections, and more participating libraries; 4) the availability of funds for initial creation of list data; and 5) the inescapable editorial advantages of online manipulation of available data, machine compatibility with other libraries' records and systems for other library functions, and continuous editing capability ensuring greater currency of data.

Given that this emphasis on bibliographic data is a fact of contemporary serials union listing, what are the implications for our union list activities? What aspects of cataloging practice are having the greatest impact on how the entry in a union list of serials appears? On the number and type of access points? Will these factors alter the way union lists function as finding tools? What has been the effect on the union list editorial function?

There are several important ways in which standard cataloging practice affects union lists that use utility databases as a source of bibliographic data. In some cases the effect is a benefit, in other ways it is not, and in still other ways it is a mixed blessing. One major area that is affected is choice of entry. Closely associated with this area is current practice for "uniform" titles. Another closely related area is form of entry. Still another issue is the method of describing title changes, that is, successive or latest entry cataloging. And in a class by itself is the question of separate bibliographic records for manifestations of a title in a format other than the original serial, that is, xerography, reprint edition, or microform. These areas tend to overlap and influence each other at various points.

Choice of entry has always been an important concept in union listing. Most union lists have been printed in book form and have had either a single entry point per title or one main entry with cross-references that direct users from other access points to bibliographic and holdings information at the main entry. The choice of main entry in


such a system is crucial to the success of the list. Recently the cataloging rules that have ef-

fected the greatest changes in serials union listing have been the restrictions placed on the concept of corporate author and the removal of the special serials rules concerning "generic" titles. 16 Because AACR2's Rule 21.1B2 restricts corporate authorship to specific kinds of publications (works dealing with a corporate body's collective thought, activ- ity, performance, self-administration, or certain legal decisions, laws, and so on), fewer publications are now entered under corporate main entry.

The change in the definition of corporate authorship applies to both serial and monograph publications but particularly affects serials. AACR1 rules made a specific exception for serial titles consisting of "generic" words such as "Jour- nal," "Bulletin," "Transactions," and "Reviews," or a phrase made up of generic words and the name of a corporate body. These titles were entered under the name of the issuing body. Under various rules and Library of Congress rule interpretations, the name of the issuing body was either omitted from the statement of the title proper or later added to the title if it was lacking on the publication itself. For example, the publication ALA Bulletin would have been properly entered under "ALA bulletin." before 1967 or after 1980; "American Library Association. Bulletin." from 1967 through August 1974; or "American Library Association. ALA Bulletin." from September 1974 through 1980. Usually an added entry was not made for the generic title. Descriptions for many of these titles were added to MARC-based utility databases before AACR2 adopted the practice of carefully recording the title as it appears on the publication, making no exceptions for serials. No longer is corporate main entry chosen for a serial on the grounds that the title of a publication is generic. No longer are titles altered to include or exclude the corporate body name from the title statement.

The combined effect of the restricted definition of corporate authorship and the lack of exception for generic serial titles is that by current rules many more serial titles are cataloged with a main entry of title as published. Since title is usually the choice of entry point for union lists of serials, the number of exceptional cases is re- duced and union listing procedures, as well as union list appearance and use, are simplified, lr As the proportion of serial titles entered under the new rules increases and as old titles are re- cataloged for various reasons, we will see even greater uniformity in choice of entry in union lists produced from bibliographic utility databases. This simplification is a very real benefit. Using corporate authorship in a more restricted way has

simplified choice of entry for union lists of serials, made selection of the proper bibliographic record for attachment of holdings data easier, and disen- tangled retrieval of data for list users.

In the meantime past inconsistencies in cataloging practice cause four basic problems for utility- based union lists. The first is that at present choice of entry is not uniform in the utility databases. The databases are made up of records cataloged and entered under AACR1 and AACR2 rules, as well as older records that have been retrospectively converted by contributing libraries. Because they may be cataloged and coded in various ways, such titles as "Journal" file in confusing ways in of f line products based on these bibliographic records. For example, a union list of serials editor using OCLC's union listing function may choose to enter bibliographic and holdings data by title statement field including all subfields unless there is a uniform title present, using cross-references from corporate main entries. A generic title consisting solely of the word "Journal," cataloged and added to the database between 1974 and 1980, will have a dash and the issuing body's name added to the one word title. These entries will interfile conveniently with uniform titles qualified by issuing body under AACR2 rules, as well with other titles beginning with the word "Journal." However, titles cataloged from 1967 to September 1974 were entered under corporate main entry and the generic title alone. If the name of the issuing body appeared in the title, it was omitted from the title statement. Since there is only one generic word in the title statement field, in this case "Journal," these publications appear at the beginning of the file "Journal...." Short of collecting surrogate title pages as evidence and sending change requests to OCLC, there is nothing the union list editor can do to make these 1967- 1974 records interfile according to the titles on the publications themselves.

A second way in which corporate main entry rules affect serials, and therefore union list entries based on bibliographic records, has to do with "the changeable nature of serials. ''is A corporate body main entry that was appropriate at the time the title was cataloged may be inappropriate at a later time if the scope of the publication changes. This presents problems for local catalogers, but additional problems for union lists based on cataloging records formulated according to standard codes. The like- lihood that participating libraries will report the title in different ways increases, because union list member libraries acquire and catalog the publication at different points in its lifetime. Of course it is possible to choose the title element as the main entry point for a union list regardless of bibliographic main entry and avoid the question of corporate entry altogether. This problem, there-

SERIALS REVIEW N U M B E R 1-2 1988 35

fore, can be avoided. But the union list will need adequate cross- references to direct users to the point of data entry.

This leads to a third situation that can cause confusion when union lists are based on util i ty databases. The main ent ry point that appears in a union list may be quite d i f fe ren t f rom the entry submit ted by a union list participant. Union list editors have always found it necessary to choose one main entry, despite d i f ferences in entry for the same title submit ted by d i f fe ren t participating libraries. In principle then, there is no d i f fe rence between choice of ent ry in union lists created by util i ty and choice of en t ry in lists compiled by other methods. The practical d i f fe rence lies in the fact that the decision on choice of ent ry is restricted by the appearance of the catalog record in the utility's database and by the data ent ry elements chosen for the list by the union listing agency, for example, title main entry. The agency has control over the latter factor but cannot make exceptions in individual cases. Nor does it have control over the catalog record. Because of the large number of CONSER records that have been upgraded to current standards of choice of entry, union list participants are likely to see an increase in the number of list entries that d i f fe r f rom their internal records, many of which were created under earlier cataloging rules. 19 What is more, the union list ent ry itself may change f rom one of f line edit ion of the list to the next because the utility's bibliographic data has changed. 2° This will prove to be a part icular problem for libraries whose inhouse records have a limited number of access points, especially i f the union list provides few cross-references.

And four th , under current cataloging rules the number of identical entries for titles classed as generic by AACR1 will increase. These titles were dispersed throughout catalogs and lists when they were entered under the issuing body's name. In union lists based on current catalog records, they will be collected in one file, making it necessary to qual ify entries with un i fo rm titles. The larger the list, ',he greater the problem. Since union lists of serials contain more titles than individual l ibrary catalogs, the problem is more pro- nounced.

Using bibliographic data created according to national standards and resident in utility databases allows for greater f lexibi l i ty in choice of entry for of f line union lists, since it enables us to establish the order in which various types of entry may be chosen for the "main entry," where location and holdings data are recorded. This order can be modif ied f rom one edit ion of the list to the next wi thout rekeying. Fur thermore , using utility bibliographic data simplifies the decision

of en t ry point, since it facilitates the making of cross-references f rom alternative access points. Cross-referencing of various alternative entries is easier, more systematic, and more thorough, since all access points available in a typical l ibrary catalog are also available in the union list if the edi tor chooses to include them. However , multiple access points are expensive because the size of the list increases and because computer tape manipulation to create the cross-references is costly. 2t Another disadvantage of relying on bibliographic records for cross-references is that only the access points in the bibliographic record can be searched. A member library's idiosyncratic en t ry of local records cannot be added as a cross-reference. The improved syndetic s tructure of a union list based on standard bibliographic description would seem to more than compensate for this occasional problem.

We have noted ways in which cross-references can mitigate some of the problems encountered when standard bibliographic choice of ent ry is used for union lists. When ut i l i ty-based union lists are available online to union list participants, there are as many access points for full union list data as there are searchable fields in the database. For libraries with online access, this fact makes the question of choice of ent ry almost moot. For those without online access, cross-references continue to play an important role.

As has been mentioned, the increased use of title as the point of main entry has resulted in a large number of identical entries that must be distinguished f rom each other. Since most union lists of serials have been arranged by title, the ident i f icat ion and sub-ar rangement of identical titles is not a new problem. But because AACR2 does not employ the concept of generic titles entered under issuing body, there are many more bibliographic descriptions in util i ty databases with identical titles such as "Journal" and "Bulletin." To solve this problem, current cataloging practice has expanded the def in i t ion of "uniform titles" to include "unique identifiers." The concept of unique identif iers was first developed in 1980/1981 by the National Library of Canada and the Library of Congress. 22 These titles are still called un i form titles, and their formula- tion is based on Chapter 25 of AACR2 (the chapter enti t led "Uniform Titles"), on Library of Congress rule interpretat ions, and on rule revisions adopted by the Joint Steering Commit tee for the Revision of AACR2.

It has been observed that using unique iden- t ifiers to distinguish d i f fe ren t works does not fall within the traditional purpose of un i form titles, which is to "provide the means for bringing together all the catalog entries for a work when various manifestations (e.g., editions, translations) of it

36 SERIALS REVIEW NUMBER 1-2 1988

have appeared under various titles. "2a M.E. Bloss considers the unique ident i f ier a new concept; 24 Turner sees the two concepts as "diametrically opposed, ''25 one designed to d i f ferent ia te between works and the other designed to group all ap- pearances of a single work together. However , the funct ion of un i form titles has never been l im- ited to collocation. Once titles are ident if ied as the same work, un i fo rm titles also distinguish between manifestat ions and organize the file. In this sense they may be more appropriately called "filing titles." Using un i form titles to discriminate between d i f f e ren t works is an extension of this practical f i l ing func t ion of the old uni form title concept, a funct ion as essential to the old purpose of uni form titles as to the newly def ined purpose, which has been revised "to distinguish the heading for a work f rom the heading for a d i f fe ren t work. ''26

Though the concept of unique identif iers is a useful one, it poses some problems when it is used to organize serials files. The chief cause of confusion has been the d i f f icul ty of deciding which elements o f description to use as qualifiers. 27 Qualifiers specified for use are 1) place of publicat ion, 2) corporate body (publisher or other issuing body), 3) place and date (date of first issue) or corporate body and date, 4) date (only), and 5) edit ion statement, other title in for - mation, and so on. Serials titles are not static, and the informat ion used to qual ify a title is as likely to change as any other element used to described the serial. A single publication may well be published in more than one place and /o r by more than one publisher. 28 Qualification by date can be dif f icul t because a l ibrary may acquire a publication at any point in the title's l ifetime. Without a full history of the publication, it is impossible to establish a date qualifier.

Moreover , when the qualifying informat ion changes, the bibliographic record must be closed or revised. A title qualif ied by corporate body must be revised i f the corporate body or the name of the corporate body changes. This is true whether the corporate body is a publisher or an issuing body wor thy of an added entry under its name. The entry bearing the old uni form title must be closed, and a new bibliographic record having a un i fo rm title with the new qualifier must be created, even though the title itself may not have changed. I f a qualif ier other than corporate body is used to distinguish between identical titles, the entry need not be closed, merely changed to reflect the new information. The change in qualifier may be given as a note, but since such notes are likely be omit ted in a union list entry, this information will not likely be available to list users.

The rules for un i fo rm titles are optional in AACR2 and are to be applied only when identical titles appear in a file and only to the newly cataloged title. It is more practical, however , to accept the un i form title as it appears in the bibliographic record resident in the uti l i ty database. Otherwise one must check for local or union list conflict each time a cataloging record with a uniform title appears. In most cases it is impossible for a union list editor to include the un i form title only in the case of identical titles in the individual list, since the list is composed f rom elements of the bibliographic records as they appear in the util i ty database at the time the data fo r a union list is collected. Of course, the union list editor may choose not to use any un i form title fields in the union list, but this "solution" creates more confusion when there are many identical titles.

For the user of a union list there are still more problems. When both the un i fo rm title and the title proper appear in the union list entry, the redundant informat ion may clutter as much as clarify a list. Moreover , since 1981 the elements p re fe r red as qualifiers have changed. Dif ferent qualifiers are more funct ional when identical titles issued under d i f fe ren t circumstances must be distinguished. The current rules and rule interpretations take this fact into account, and allow a certain f lexibi l i ty in choice of qualifier . A list user may well be confused about the organizing principle of a file when some titles are qualif ied by publisher, some by issuing body, some by place of publication, some by date, and some by a combinat ion of these elements. Nor can we assume that a union list user will always be able to ident i fy the publication he is seeking based on the qualifying element used in the list entry. And a user who found a title qualif ied by "Chicago" in the last edit ion of a list may not understand that the title qualif ied by "New York" in the new edit ion is the same publication and that the publisher has simply moved.

In summary, the use of un i form titles as unique identif iers is not antithetical to earlier uses and may be an attractive, or even necessary, way of organizing files in union lists of serials. In many cases, this is an ef fec t ive way of distinguishing between d i f fe ren t publications. However , choice of qualifiers creates real problems for users in some circumstances and causes an extra burden of bibliographic manipulat ion in cases that would not otherwise warrant it.

Form of ent ry is another area in which cataloging practice affects union lists of serials based on bibliographic records. Union list filing problems arising f rom form of ent ry largely result f rom dis- crepancies caused by old cataloging fo rm of entry rules. Although utility databases contain records formula ted according to several cataloging codes,

SERIALS REVIEW NUMBER 1-2 1988 37

form of entry is an area in which using a utility benefits a union list. Because utility databases, using the machine-readable name authority file of the Library of Congress, have brought name entries into conformity, few conflicts in form of entry are likely. The task of the union list editor has been greatly simplified. There will be differences between the union list entries and local library records that have not been authorized by the LC name authority file. Since cross-references for the old form of entry are available in the bibliographic records, they may be added to the union list if the listing agency desires. These cross-references may be a considerable added expense, since the process will affect every added entry as well as every main entry and increase the size of the list. However, with or without cross-references, internal consistency of entry form may be achieved with very little editorial effort.

The impact of using utility bibliographic records as a union list data source is felt heavily in the area of title changes. Prior to 1967 serial publications were entered under the latest (i.e., most recent) title. Titles used earlier in the publication's history were given in a note that began "Title varies:...." Added entries were made for these titles. Most union lists of serials used the "latest entry" method of recording titles, usually creating cross-references from the earlier to the latest title and often including a "Title varies" note at the main entry.

A different method of describing title changes is to describe each title change as a separate entry in full and link the various titles of a publication's history by "Continues" and "Continued by" notes. Known as "successive entry," this method was mandated by Anglo-American Catalog- ing Rules in 1967. What impact does this method have on union list entries? To answer this question, one must take into account the history of cataloging rules and practice, developments in machine-readable database, and retrospective conversion efforts.

The Library of Congress did not adopt successive entry until 1973, and many libraries followed the lead of the Library of Congress. Since 1973 successive entry has been widely accepted as the method of choice for recording title changes. This period coincides roughly with the entry of machine-readable cataloging data in the utility databases, since the Library of Congress began distributing serials cataloging copy via MARC tape in February 1973. 9̀9 However, retrospective conversion efforts, especially the CONSER project, resulted in many latest entry records being entered in machine-readable databases. The original CONSER guidelines called for successive entry of all serials cataloged since 1967. Manual

records created before 1967 could be retrospectively converted using the latest entry cataloging method. But in 1981 OCLC, the host database for CONSER, instructed cataloging libraries and serials union list agencies using OCLC's union listing function to use successive entry records only, even if this meant inputting original successive entry records for a publication that already had a latest entry record in the database, or preferring unauthenticated successive entry records to authenticated CONSER records in latest entry form. s°

The result is that utility databases have a combination of latest and successive entry serials catalog records. CONSER-authenticated latest entry records for titles that have not changed since before 1967 still appear in the OCLC database but must not be used for union listing. Union list editors must input successive entry .records or convince their participating libraries to do so. Either the editor must become a cataloger, or the participating library must recatalog its latest entry serial records even if it has no other reason to do so. However, successive entry offers a major editorial benefit. When a title changes, the only established entry point that has to be modified is the last title. Entries for earlier titles remain the same. The editor does not have to change main or added entries or cross-references, and the user does not have to learn the new main entry for an old title.

Having all the records in successive entry form may make life easier for the union list user, who typically comes to a list with a citation for a title that was being used at the time the book or article from which the citation comes was published. If latest entry cataloging has been used in compiling the list, the user finds not the holdings he is seeking but a cross-reference to another title when the title has changed. With lists based on successive entry bibliographic records, the user finds the holdings he wants immediately. There may be problems when the union list title has been entered successively and the local library still has latest entry form, especially when the library has a finding aid with only one entry point for each catalog record. Again the differences between the union list and local records can be a nuisance.

Following cataloging standards for choice and form of entry, uniform titles, and method of recording title changes holds the attraction of order, predic- tability, written documentation, and established usage. With a few notable exceptions, the library community has agreed to follow the standards. This is not the case in the area of multiple physical formats of a title. Chief among these are microform reproductions and "on demand" photoreproductions of published materials. Not far removed theoretically are facsimile and other reprints, but these have not been as controversial in cataloging circles.


Under AACR2 rules the bibliographic details of a microreproduction are described as a separate publication, and information about the original publication is given in a note. This reverses earlier cataloging conventions. Emphasizing the description of the reproduction seemed to be a great departure from earlier rules. However, in some ways it was the culmination of a trend toward describing the physical work in hand. Under AACRI and earlier rules, when a library owned both the original and the reproduction, the reproduction was given as a "dash entry" on the bibliographic entry for the original, and both publications were described by one catalog record. The same principles were expressed in AACR1 Revised Chapter 6 in 1974. A provision in AACRI allowed reproductions to be cataloged as separate publications, though the reproductions were still to be described primarily in terms of the original. The Library of Congress opted to catalog microform publications separately. Facsimile editions (and other reprint editions in AACR1 Revised Chapter 6) were to be recorded in separate catalog records that described the bibliographic details of the reprint.

In 1980 LC announced an interim policy gov- erning the description of reproductions. The original publication was to be emphasized, and details of the reproduction were to be given as the last note. A general material designator (GMD) for microforms was to be given after the title proper, but otherwise the bibliographic description was for the original document. Except for the GMD, this is essentially a continuation of LC's previous practice. The library community in the United States has followed LC's lead. The unwillingness of librarians to give up the emphasis on the original document and their concurrent need to describe the reproduction as a separate publication reflects two conflicting goals of bibliographic description.

Although library catalogs have always had this dual goal, union lists of serials have seldom placed as much emphasis on the bibliographic details of publication for reproductions. Frequently even individual libraries lump all manifestations of a serial title into one holdings record, whether the actual volumes are held in original, reprint, microform, or photocopy. When a union list of serials relies on catalog records as a source of bibliographic data, an editor must decide whether to attach the reproduction holdings to the record for the original publication inaccurately or split the holdings among the bibliographic records for different formats, forcing list users to look for two or more records for a title they very likely regard as one entity. Furthermore, even within one library a serial title may be represented by

microform holdings in the same format published by several sources. For example, a library may own in microfilm some issues of the Wall Street Journal published by Recordak, some published by Bell and Howell, and some published by University Microfilms International. And the problem is com- pounded in union lists, where the holdings of many libraries are represented. Precise bibliographic description requires a separate record for each published segment, but the users of a union list of serials will hardly be served when the holdings are broken up among several bibliographic records. Publishing information about the reproduction appears as the last note in a bibliographic record. Such notes are not always included in union lists, and when they are not, users may be unable to determine why the holdings are split.

This problem remains unresolved almost ten years after the appearance of AACR2. In 1981 the ALA/RTSD/Cataloging and Classification See- tion's Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access voted to favor LC's interim policy as an alternative to AACR2's rule 0.24, which instructs catalogers to base their descriptions on physical format. Since then the topic has been noted and discussed, but no conclusions have been reached. In 1983 Jean Whiffen proposed that a special study group be set up to examine "improvements needed in multinational cataloging codes and in the Guidelines for ISDS in respect to newspapers, and all serials in microform or other reproduction, with particular reference to the bibliographic records in serials management systems and union catalogs of serials. "31 In 1985 the ALA/RTSD/Serials Section's Research Libraries Discussion Group considered the subject. Although the group discussed several ways of dealing with the problem, it preferred the use of one record with notes about different formats. 32

For union lists of serials based on utility bibliographic databases, agencies or editors must decide whether to record microforms and other reproductions in holdings records attached to the description for the original or for the microform copies. The ANSI Standard Z39.42-1980, Serial Holdings Statements at the Summary Level, requires attaching holdings to the bibliographic record that describes the holdings. For current cataloging practice, that means separating reproduction holdings from original holdings, since they are described on separate bibliographic records. OCLC recommends following the standard but will allow union list editors to "digress" from the standard and record microform holdings in the holdings statement for the original. However, OCLC has issued the caveat that they can guarantee to support only those users who follow the standard. 33 The holdings field used to specify the microform holdings is used also for local notes of all kinds. Reproduction

SERIALS REVIEW N U M B E R 1-2 1988 39

holdings are not subfielded separately. If notes are formula ted as instructed, it is not impossible to retr ieve these holdings, but it could prove d i f - ficult.

The Library of Congress has created a Mult i - ple Versions Commit tee , which is considering several solutions to this dilemma. One calls for a "parent serial record," where a full bibliographic description for one version would be linked to br iefer records to describe other manifestations, s4 The author is not aware of any other developments. At present , OCLC is not working with that aspect of holdings formats. The closest approximat ion of the "parent serial record" pr in- ciple in use on a national level is the U.S. News- paper Project 's a t tachment of holdings in micro- format to the bibl iographic records for the original paper copy. s6

For now, many union lists "digress" f rom the ANSI Summary Holdings Standard. List editors sometimes compromise. I f all holdings owned by list participants are in one microreproduct ion fo r - mat by one publisher and it is unlikely that any member will ever own the original (for example, a title published during the early 1800s), the list editor will attach holdings to the bibliographic record for the microform. If all holdings for a title are in reprint , the edi tor will attach holdings to the bibliographic record for the reprint. If participants report holdings in a variety of fo r - mats, the edi tor will attach holdings to the bibliographic record for the original. While the editors following this pract ice are at tempting to conform to standards when it is not detr imental to list use, their wel l -meaning actions are introducing an in- consistency that may be d i f f icul t to resolve.

Until some consensus is reached, the issue will a f fec t union lists based on bibliographic records. Union listing endeavors may do better to look for solutions outside the bibliographic record, such as t ransferr ing the distinction of physical format to a holding record linked to the bibliographic record for the original publication. Pos- sibly something like a "parent serial record" will be pursued fur ther .

We have discussed ways in which the use of ut i l i ty-based bibl iographic data affects the appearance of union lists of serials. There are other consequences as well. Since individual lists serving d i f fe ren t groups of libraries have special needs, the consequences will vary as editorial choices are made for d i f fe ren t lists and participants. A union list's size and editorial decisions about the number of access points and amount of data will a f fec t relationships with local serials cataloging and links to other local management records.

Although there has been some interest in standardizing the bibl iographic data included in

union lists, z6 an advantage of using MARC data is that individual lists may be s t ructured according to the needs of list participants. The data included can vary f rom little more than title and continuation notes to a full bibliographic record. Within certain limits we may choose which data we include, based on perceived needs rather than economic or editorial constraints of physical compilation, and change our mind under various circumstances. M.E. Bloss prefers to view union list data as a "deliberate subset of a fuller cataloging record, rather than an incomplete one. ' 'st She observes that the increased use of online serials files and the ease with which they can be manipulated has diminished the need for a union list bibliographic standard. 38

We need not feel compelled to include full cataloging descript ion and access in union lists simply because the data is available in the MARC records we are using as a source. We should include only enough data to ident i fy the publication sought and link the union list record to serial records serving other purposes. Not only will excessive data cost more in o f f line products, but the resulting increase in size will make the products more diff icul t to manipulate and read. At the same time, including alternative access points available in standard bib- l iographic data increases the l ikelihood that users will f ind the informat ion they need.

I f local records have not been changed to ref lect current cataloging standards, a user will of ten f ind a cross- reference in the union list instead of the full entry, but eventual ly he can reach the informat ion he needs. Since local serials files are likely to correspond either to the main entry used in the bibliographic record or to an alternative access point, union lists based on utility bibliographic records will automatically contain practically all the cross-references that would be available if they were entered manually. It must be remembered that union list entries have never been identical to every entry in every local file in every part icipant library. Idiosyncratic local use cannot be cross- re ferenced in ut i l i ty-based union lists, but it can be noted in holdings records. Thus, at least there is a pointer f rom standard usage to the local record. As local files come to be based on standards, the use of MARC data for union lists enhances the relationships between local and union list files. Not only does this create f lexibil i ty in transferring informat ion automatically between files, 39 but f rom titles to control numbers, users may f ind information readily because the standard access points are coor- dinated.

Serials union listing based on standard bibliographic practice and MARC communicat ions format is the culmination of a gradual increase in the importance of the bibliographic record, the unman- ageabili ty of manual means of list compilation, and


the ready availability of MARC data in bibliographic utilities. Although the slower development of holdings standards seems to have shifted the emphasis in union lists of serials toward the bibliographic record, holdings information may be dis- tributed more easily and updated more regularly when it is standardized and attached to a MARC standard utility-based bibliographic record, especially if the union list is accessible online. The use of current cataloging standards affects the appearance of union list entries most frequently in the areas of entry choice, uniform titles, entry form, the use of successive entry method to describe title changes, and the recording of serial holdings in reproduction. It has also affected union list agency functions by requiring more bibliographic training and expertise. Users of union lists of serials will find more access points, bibliographic detail tailored to individual lists, and more links to local files as serials management is standardized and automated.

NOTES

1. Diana Reimer, "How Do You Spell Sharing?" in Union Lists: Issues and Answers, ed. Dianne Ellsworth (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1982), 4.

2. Ruth C. Carter, "Cataloging Decisions on Pre- AACR2 Serial Records from a Union List View- point," Serials Review 7 (April/June 1981): 77.

3. Florence M. McKenna and Ruth C. Carter, "Serials Workflow Without a Centralized Serials Department," in Projects and Procedures for Serials Administration, comp. and ed. Diane Stine (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1985), 49.

4. Marjorie E. Bloss, "The Serials Pastiche: Union Lists of Serials," Drexel Library Quarterly 21 (Winter 1985): 101.

5. N.L. Schultz Baldwin, "BCUC and Serials .... " Serials Librarian 6 (Fall 1981): 45

6. Dianne Ellsworth, "California Library Authori- ty for Systems and Services," in Union Lists, Is- sues and Answers, ed. Dianne Ellsworth (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1982), 18.

7. Jean Whiff in, "Union Catalogs of Serials: Guidelines for Creation and Maintenance, with Recommended Standards for Bibliographic and Holdings Control," Serials Librarian 8 (Fall 1983): 9.

8. Marjorie E. Bloss, "The Impact of AACR2 on Union Lists of Serials," in AACR2 and Serials: The American View, ed. Neal L. Edgar (New York: Ha- worth Press, c1983), 100.

9. M.E. Bloss, "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union...List of Serials: A Report of the Workshop," Serials Review 8 (Spring 1982): 67.

10. M.E. Bloss, "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union...List of Serials: A Report of the Workshop," 67.

11. New Serial Titles: A Union List of Serials Commencing Publication after December 31, 1949, 1950-1970 Cumulative (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; New York: R.R. Bowker, 1973), vii.

12. Michael Moen, "Bibliographic Utilities and Networks: Blackwell North America," in Union Lists, Issues and Answers, ed. Dianne Ellsworth (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1982), 37-38.

13. M.E. Bloss, "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union...List of Serials: A Report of the Workshop," 68; Marjorie E. Bloss, "Quality Control: Centralized and Decentralized Union Lists," Serials Review 8 (Fall 1982): 91; Jennifer Cargill, "Preparation of a Serials Holdings List Using a Word Processor," in Union Lists, Issues and Answers, ed. Dianne Ellsworth (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1982), 81-87.

14. See more detailed descriptions of several union listing services in Michael Moen, et al., "Bibliographic Utilities and Networks," in Union Lists, Issues and Answers, ed. Dianne Ellsworth (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1982), 37-41.

15. "Continuing Reports from the 52nd General Conference of IFLA, Division of Collections and Services, Section on Serial Publications," Library of Congress Information Bulletin, 46 (11 May 1987): 198.

16. Ann Turner, "AACR2 and Serials," Serials Li- brarian 6 (Fall 1981): 30.

17. M.E. Bloss, "Impact of AACR2," 103.

18. Turner, 31.

19. Anne-Marie Hartman, "The Implications of AACR2 on Serials Management and Union Listing," in Union Lists, Issues and Answers, ed. Dianne Ellsworth (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1982), 72; Debora Shaw, "A Review of Developments Leading to On-Line Union Listing of Serials," in Managemem

SERIALS REVIEW NUMBER I-2 1988 41

of Serials Automation, ed. Peter Gellatly (New York: Haworth Press, 1982), 187. 20. Alexander Bloss, "Coping with the Evolving Serial Record," Serials Review 8 (Winter 1982): 93.


22. Turner, 32.

23. Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2d ed., ed. by Michael Gorman and Paul Winkler (Chicago: American Library Association; Ottawa: Canadian Library Association, 1978), 441.


25. Turner, 34.

26. Library of Congress, Cataloging Service Bul- letin, no. 18 (Fall 1982): 88.

27. Frank E. Sadowski, Jr., "Serials Cataloging Developments, 1975-1985: A Personal View of Some Highlights," Serials Librarian 10 (Fall 1985/Winter 1985-1986): 135.

28. "A Serials Discussion Group: Form of Entry," in Union Lists, Issues and Answers, ed. Dianne Ellsworth (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1982), 65; Hartman, "Implications of AACR2," 74-75.

29. OCLC Online Computer Center, Inc., Serials Control: User Manual (Dublin, OH: OCLC, 1983), A:28.


31. Whiffin, 9.

32. Sadowski, 137.

33. OCLC Online Computer Center, Inc., A:28.

34. Dorothy Glasby, telephone conversation with the author, 19 October 1987.

35. Dea Szatkowski, telephone conversation with author, 27 May 1987.

36. Whiff in, 9.


38. Marjorie E. Bloss, "Uniformity in Union Lists of Serials: Measuring up to Standards," in Library Serials Standards: Development, Implementation, Impact; Proceedings of the Third Annual Serials Conference, ed. Nancy Jean Melin (Westport, CT: Meckler Publishing, c1984), 65.

39. Baldwin, 47 . •


the catalog record and automated union listing

Documents