Integrating Resources: Module 35

3/31/2008

[References]{.underline}

1\. *Differences between, Changes within*. Chicago: ALCTS, 2007.
http://www.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/alctspubsbucket/webpublications/cataloging/newrecord/differences.htm

2\. "Changes in a bibliographic resources mode of issuance""
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/modeissu.html

3\. CEG C7.4 (reporting duplicates)

4\. Electronic Resource Management: Report of the DLF ERM Initiative:
<http://www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf102/>

Isn't this being revised?

*BIBCO participants' manual*. Carol Hixson, David Banush, Ana Cristán,
eds. Washington, D.C.: Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2002-.
Retrieved January 10, 2003 from:

<http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/bpm.pdf>

[Definitions]{.underline}: Additional terms to consider

Blog

Multipart item (v. integrating resource)

original source creator (IR2.3)

service provider or host (IR2.3)

IR 1.2.2, p. 12: history of the crusades: this is an excellent
example---shows that a monograph with a search box is still a monograph.

IR 1.2.2, p. 15: According to the document,

"Example: Web site continually updated with previous iterations no
longer available -- catalog as an integrating resource "

Question: what about a web site that is archived through Internet
Archive or other archiving program, e.g., LOCKSS? If the previous
iterations are available does that make the Web site a serial? (I don't
think so, but how to distinguish these situations?)

p\. 18: I'm so glad you included this! The question that comes up when
this example is used is, when should an online conference publication be
cataloged as a serial?

Aggregator neutral IR:

"This policy is limited to remote access electronic resources that are
available simultaneously from two or more different electronic service
providers (one of which may or may not be the original publisher or
society) but are essentially the same resource and consist of the same
content."

Reference to 16.3.1-16.3.3 here?

p\. 20, The provider neutral record does not contain information
specific to any one particular provider, with the exceptions of citing
the source upon which the record was based and providing access points
for variant titles that some providers use for the resource.. (delete
one of the period marks)

p\. 20: formatting: might add a hyphen after 246 field to keep the
subfields aligned

"246 Make added entries for title variants as for any IR

246 1- \$i Title from HTML header: \$a \[Title\]

246 11 **\$a** \[title for German part of website\]

Question: Is the coding "246 11" preferred since the whole resource is
used as the chief source? Or, would catalogers distinguish titles
appearing in multiple languages from separate web pages in each
language? When should "246 11" be used; and when should 246 1\_ \$i
German home page: \$a

Is a \$f used with 246 fields only for iterations after the earliest one
viewed?

p\. 21: "Give the applicable URLs for current iterations. " Can we point
to Internet Archive versions if that is the only version extant? What
about other archived versions?

p\. 22 & 97: IR2.2 + 16.3.1-16.3.3:

The following situations are covered:

1.  LC BLvl m record (should be 'i') to report to LC

2.  CONSER record to be declared dup to re-code to signal this as a dup;
    reported for deletion

3.  Non-PCC duplicate records to report to OCLC

But there are other situations:

1.  CONSER serial v. non-CONSER e-IR: are these considered allowable
    duplicates? (That is, if one provider represents articles as a
    database & another represents articles as serial issues, what should
    happen within the aggregator-neutral context? Up to now, some of us
    have just been using the CONSER serial bib record, since database
    aggregators have a fluid representation of serials. Some begin with
    a single search box to search articles of a serial & later, as an
    enhancement, provide an "issue" view. Others do not provide a page
    of issues, but the articles include citation to the original issue
    of the serial)\
    Implications: Has implications for OCLC and for SFX resolution (from
    the service menu). Also will affect what we report as duplicates

2.  CONSER serial v. CONSER e-IR: If one cataloger has established a
    title as a serial & another has established it as an IR, what should
    happen? Usually with CONSER serial, we consult each other or consult
    LC. But the instructions do not include consultation. (cf., CEG
    C7.4)

Order of preferences: In the case of multiple PCC records, is there any
preference between a CONSER record & a non-CONSER record? (If the CONSER
record disappears & the 010, 042 are not transferred to the PCC record,
how will CDS know to remove the CONSER record from distribution?)

Reporting: What about non-CONSER pcc records? Are these reported along
with category 3?

p\. 22: IR 2.3

Good start\--This is a very important segment!

Could some more elaboration be given about original source creator v.
service provider v. host? How do these terms compare with those in the
data dictionary at:
<http://www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf102/dlfermi0408appd.pdf> ?

How can catalogers be aware of the difference between the service
provider & the interface?

What is MetaPress?

Some terms from Glossary, Appendix D of the Electronic Resource
Management document (or is this obsolete now?):

> Electronic Product (Electronic Product): In this model, an electronic
> product represents a superclass. It is comprised of the Electronic
> Resource Entity and the Interface Entity (for more information, see
> Appendix E: Electronic Resources Management System Data Structure)
>
> *Provider:* The organization or service that supplies electronic
> access to the electronic content
>
> *Publisher:* The organization responsible for the production of the
> information contained in the product

p\. 23: nice example!

p\. 24: Example---thanks for putting this up front.

007: only first 2 bytes needed? (cr, rather than crn)

042: missing?

050: could refer here to IR.15.2, since this differs from PCC
guidelines, BIBCO manual, p. 1: ...

> • a classification number from an internationally recognized scheme,
> such as Library of Congress, Dewey, or National Library of Medicine
> classification (the exceptions are those formats where classification
> number is optional, as articulated in PCC Core standards); and,

p\. 28:

Multiple providers of an online integrating resource (IR): which version
should be used for the description? \[sentence fragment\]

Should this be: In the case of multiple...

p\. 30: website v. Web site? Which is preferred?

CEG, 31.3.4:

[500](http://desktop.loc.gov/nxt/gateway.dll?f=qlhitlist$qlhitlist_x=Advanced$qlhitlist_vpc=first$qlhitlist_xsl=querylink.xsl$qlhitlist_sel=title;path;content-type;home-title$qlhitlist_d={MABIBL}$qlhitlist_q=%5Bfield folio-destination-name:'500'%5D$qlhitlist_md=target-id=0-0-0-755)
\## \$a Title from PDF caption (publisher\'s Web site, viewed Aug. 20,
2003).

p\. 30 (continued)

500 \_\_ \$a Title from HTML header (EBSCO, viewed Aug. 3, 1998).

Is EBSCO the same as EBSCOhost? Does it matter?

e.g.: America History and Life:

![](media/image1.png){width="5.993055555555555in" height="2.3125in"}

Should package as well as provider be given in the case where the
provider has multiple packages? Or, should package names be avoided as
too volatile? (This came up in training once)

IR.4.2

Please consider moving statement currently given as note on page 35 to
IR 4.2. (p. 31), so catalogers will know up front that using CSR is ok.

IR4.2.2, p.33,

245 00 \$a Biodiversity information online ǂh \[electronic resource\].

246 1\_ ǂi Title appears on Web page as: ǂa Welcome to Biodiversity
information online :

Suggestions:

"\$" v. "ǂ" for subfield?

Delete final colon ":" after "Biodiversity information online"

IR4.2.4 p. 35

Example per CSR guidelines:

245 00 \$a Governmental Accounting Standards Board \$h \[electronic
resource\].

246 13 \$a GASB

Interesting! I guess in this case, that CCM 6.1.8 (what to do when there
is no true title)--- AACR2 1.1E6 (to add clarifying information, to show
that this is the Web site and not the newsletter)\-- is no longer being
recommended...

IR.4.2.6, p. 37

500 \_\_ \$a Title from HTML header (viewed on June 16, 1998).

500 \_\_ \$a Title from HTML header (viewed on Aug. 30, 2000).

This makes sense, assuming that the record is not aggregator-neutral.
But to make the example clearer (since the manual includes both
agg-neutral & non-agg-neutral examples), could each example label
include that information?

E.g.: Example: Change in title proper on later iteration
(supplier-specific; traditional AACR2)

This will help distinguish agg-neutral & CSR examples. Would also be
useful during keyword searching.

In fact, the text would also benefit by more clearly labeling which
instructions are CSR & which are traditional. New catalogers may be
confused by:

p\. 39:

![](media/image2.png){width="5.995138888888889in"
height="2.3180555555555555in"}

Why past participle "subtitled"? Why not "subtitle"?

IR.4.4 Parallel titles (AACR2 12.1D)

Note: According to the CONSER standard record guidelines, it is not
required to record parallel titles in \$b 245. They may be recorded in
246 and coded 246 11.

Record parallel title(s) on the current iteration. If a parallel title
is added, deleted, or changed on a subsequent iteration, change the 245
field to reflect the current iteration; if considered to be important,
give any earlier parallel titles in a 246 field for access. See also
IR.10.7.

Why not follow the labeling used on p. 39 for CSR throughout the
document, and also add a label to show when the instructions for CSR
guidelines end?:

IR.4.4 Parallel titles (AACR2 12.1D)

CONSER standard record practice: According to the CONSER standard record
guidelines, it is not required to record parallel titles in \$b 245.
They may be recorded in 246 and coded 246 11.

Traditional: Record parallel title(s) on the current iteration. If a
parallel title is added, deleted, or changed on a subsequent iteration,
change the 245 field to reflect the current iteration; if considered to
be important, give any earlier parallel titles in a 246 field for
access. See also IR.10.7.

IR4.5: p. 38

245 00 \$a Native Freshwater Fish Society of New Zealand \$h
\[electronic resource\] : \$b \[home page\].

245 00 \$a Los Angeles County Museum of Art \$h \[electronic resource\]
: \$b LACMA : \[home page\].

(not seriously, but:) Oh, no, not again! Seems like we just re-did all
of our documentation from "home page" to "Web site." For this kind of
change (which is minor, but a real training issue), could some
justification be provided?

IR.4.6 Statement of responsibility (AACR2 12.1F), p. 39

CONSER standard record practice: It is not required...

Good! I like this labeling convention.

IR5.1. Overview, p. 40

but do not transcribe edition statements unique to one digital
provider's version of a resource.

If edition information is added, deleted, or changed on

Suggestion: delete box around "to"

IR.5.3 Electronic resources, p. 41

Examples:

500 \$a Description based on: Version 3.5; title from home page (viewed
on Nov. 4, 2003).

500 \$a Description based on: Version 8.11.2003; title from title screen
(viewed on Dec. 2, 2003).

Question: Could this situation ever occur when one is trying to create
an aggregator-neutral record? Or does it only happen in
supplier-specific cases?

If this might also happen for aggregator-neutral records, could an
example be included? So far, the a-n examples are very rare in this
manual.

IR.7.2Dates of publication, distribution, manufacturing, etc., p. 43

For those of us following the CSR guidelines, would we omit 260 \$c?

p\. 44:

When using an existing bibliographic record for copy cataloging,
generally accept a date in the 260 subfield \$c. If the date is
obviously incorrect, either change it to the correct date if known or
delete it.

Suggestion: Add reference here to IR.7.4 (for FF maintenance)

p\. 46:

Issued by the Association of American Economics \<Aug. 30, 2000\>.

For those of us following CCM, should we still follow "13.2.2. Form and
style":

> Examples given in
> *[AACR2](http://desktop.loc.gov/nxt/gateway.dll?f=qlhitlist$qlhitlist_x=Advanced$qlhitlist_vpc=first$qlhitlist_xsl=querylink.xsl$qlhitlist_sel=title;path;content-type;home-title$qlhitlist_d={Aacr2}$qlhitlist_q=%5Bfield folio-destination-name:'AACR2'%5D$qlhitlist_md=target-id=0-0-0-294) *and
> rules
> [12.7A1](http://desktop.loc.gov/nxt/gateway.dll?f=qlhitlist$qlhitlist_x=Advanced$qlhitlist_vpc=first$qlhitlist_xsl=querylink.xsl$qlhitlist_sel=title;path;content-type;home-title$qlhitlist_d={Aacr2}$qlhitlist_q=%5Bfield folio-destination-name:'12.7A1'%5D$qlhitlist_md=target-id=0-0-0-13437)
> and
> [1.7A3](http://desktop.loc.gov/nxt/gateway.dll?f=qlhitlist$qlhitlist_x=Advanced$qlhitlist_vpc=first$qlhitlist_xsl=querylink.xsl$qlhitlist_sel=title;path;content-type;home-title$qlhitlist_d={Aacr2}$qlhitlist_q=%5Bfield folio-destination-name:'1.7A3'%5D$qlhitlist_md=target-id=0-0-0-2743),
> point to a preferred style for formal notes, i.e.,
>
> \[introductory word(s)\]: \[information\], \[dates\]

550 \-- \$a Issued by: Association of American Economics, \<Aug. 30,
2000-\>

(also would be more consistent with IR10.1, p. 50)

IR.9.1, p. 48

*Earlier iteration:*

440 0 \$a Federal practice series

Should be: 440 \_0

p\. 49

Earlier iteration:

440 0 \$a Research in library acquisitions

Should be: 440 \_0

Question: How will the PCC policy on series affect this section? Should
there be mention of 936 field for unevaluated series (if approved)?

IR.10.2 Frequency of updates, p. 51

How does this relate to the aggregator-neutral record? If a
supplier-specific record is being converted, may we delete this
information?

p\. 52:

> Under the CONSER standard record guidelines , coding of 008 bytes 18
> and 19 is optional, a fill character may be used for these elements.\]

Suggestion: delete final "\]"

IR.10.4 Source of title proper, p. 54:

> Example:
>
> 500 \_\_ \$a Title from title screen (viewed Feb. 2, 1999).

Could an agg-neutral example also be provided here?

IR.10.5 Titles other than title proper, p. 55:

Do CSR guidelines also apply (use of 246 13 for other titles)?

IR.10.5 (lower on page)

> 245 00 \$a Checklist of amphibian species and identification guide \$h
> \[electronic resource\] : \$b an online guide for the identification
> of amphibians in North America north of Mexico / \$c North American
> Reporting Center for Amphibian Malformations
>
> 246 1\_ \$i Former subtitle: \$a Online guide for amphibians in the
> United States and Canada \$f \<Aug. 11, 1998\>

Question: Why is this coded "246 1\_" rather than "246 0\_" (to be
consistent with IR.4.5, p. 39)

IR.10.7, p. 57

Re: CSR: Should there be an example of CSR cataloging as well? Also:
Should the CSR instructions for new parallel titles appearing on later
iterations be included at this point?

![](media/image3.png){width="5.995138888888889in"
height="0.7708333333333334in"}

Suggestion: to change typeface for "(246 field"

-   The earlier other title information includes words clarifying a
    "weak" title proper.

Seems that the concept of a "weak" title has been introduced here and on
page 37 without any explanation. Could this concept be clarified? (Might
this be a carry-over from pre-AACR2 code?)

IR.10.6.1, p. 56

General question regarding changes to e-IRs: How do we know when a
change (particularly for title information) is aggregator-neutral and
when it is supplier-specific?

Formatting:

![](media/image4.png){width="5.993055555555555in"
height="1.0583333333333333in"}

Could move border slightly to the left. 245 \$a also needs alignment

p\. 59:

![](media/image5.png){width="5.802083333333333in"
height="0.9791666666666666in"}

Suggestion: 500 \_\_

p\. 60

![](media/image6.png){width="5.451388888888889in"
height="0.8798611111111111in"}

Suggestion: Line could be deleted.

p\. 61:

![](media/image7.png){width="5.992361111111111in"
height="0.5833333333333334in"}

Question: Could the CSR option be illustrated? Unclear whether the note
is intended to mean: 362 1\_ \$a Began in 1997? Ceased in 2002.

IR.10.15, p. 63:

Will this be affected by the PCC policy (when approved)? In the
meantime, should there be a statement about a possible refinement
forthcoming?

![](media/image8.png){width="5.760416666666667in"
height="0.9791666666666666in"}

Suggestion: 830 \_0 ...

IR.10.17 Other formats (AACR2 12.7B16) (530 or 776 field), p. 64

Is there a preference to use 776 08 over 530 for records cataloged
according to the CSR guidelines?

p\. 66:

![](media/image9.png){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="1.8472222222222223in"}

This would be clearer if the examples were marked as to
aggregator-neutral, loose-leaf, online

IR.10.21, p. 66

> CONSER practice limits this field for the really unusual type of
> computer file or data.

Thank you!!!

IR.11 Relationships to other resources, p. 68: Is this where one would
discuss changes to form of issuance?

IR.11.3, p. 71

![](media/image10.png){width="5.992361111111111in"
height="2.740972222222222in"}

Suggestion: 130\_

Question: How does application of CSR guidelines affect use of 130s for
IRs?

![](media/image11.png){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="2.5555555555555554in"}

Suggestion:

250 \_\_

775 0\_ \$t WebElements periodic table \$b Professional ed.

(no period at end of \$t?)

IR11.4, p. 73

![](media/image12.png){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="1.711111111111111in"}

![](media/image13.png){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="1.7083333333333333in"}

Comment:

Based on the previous sections, and considering this to be a Canadian
publication, looks like this might better be coded "246 11"

But in cases where the language versions are not part of the same site,
should they be coded 740? Over time, if records for other language
versions appear in OCLC, should we change 740 to 775?

> Hierarchical elements in a given domain do not represent supplementary
> relationships; use the 770/772 linking fields only there is a stated
> supplementary relationship.

Suggestion: only *if* there is...

![](media/image14.png){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="1.7618055555555556in"}

Question: How to convert records with 773 when moving to an
aggregator-neutral record?

IR 14.9, p. 82:

![](media/image15.png){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="2.3555555555555556in"}

Should alternative also be given:

  ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
  Type a     ELvl       Srce c     GPub       Ctrl                   Lang eng

  BLvl i     Form s     Conf ■     Freq ■     MRec                   Ctry dcy

  S/L 2      Orig ■     EntW       Regl ■     Alph                   

  Desc a                Cont       DtSt c     Dates      2002,9999   
  ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------

006 ER

007 c \$b r

IR.15.2, p. 85: fine, but will BIBCO manual need to be revised?

p\. 86

![](media/image16.png){width="5.997916666666667in"
height="0.5305555555555556in"}

Suggestion: left alignment needed?

p\. 87-89: Databases: This is likely to confuse. In fact, I am now
confused.

![](media/image17.png){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="0.6888888888888889in"}

![](media/image18.png){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="1.742361111111111in"}

Problem: The earlier example of a directory is also clearly formatted as
a database:

![](media/image19.png){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="1.7652777777777777in"}

Nor does the additional instruction ("Do not use ... or other similar
types.") help, since the Internet Broadway Database might be considered
to be a reference work.

IR.15.4 Change in content of an integrating resource, p. 89: What should
we do when the content goes away? How to cease a record for a resource
that no longer exists?

IR.16.1 What changes in an integrating resource require a new
bibliographic record? What changes are handled by updating the existing
record?, p.90

Could we have some examples of online resources that change form of
issuance (e.g., online serial to online database)? What to do? (also
need more information about this for IR.10.22: Should we distinguish
856s that change to a new location from those that no longer exist? Or,
should we just pile on new 856s?)

p\. 99 and forward: This is intended as an appendix to the BIBCO manual
and as module 35 of the CONSER manual, but the examples are not for
authenticated PCC records. Why not?

![](media/image20.png){width="5.992361111111111in" height="1.0in"}

If this is ELvl blank, should the record have 042?

Now that Integrating resources records can be conserized, should
classification now be 050 \_4 or 050 14? (R. Bremer's question at
Midwinter)

![](media/image21.png){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="3.5506944444444444in"}

Is this supposed to be an example of CSR guidelines?

CSR: Orig also ■ ?

006, 007: cj?

246 coding---why not 246 13?

538: why is this needed?

Why not ELvl blank, Srce c, 010, 042?

p\. 104

![](media/image22.png){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="0.32083333333333336in"}

Why not 246 2\_ \$i Subtitle: \$a

(also wondered about this for p. 39)

Also: Noticed that this record is for a Law title. Has the Law community
now endorsed some aspects of CSR, or is the fixed field not intended to
show partial application of CSR guidelines?