CONSER format change linking group

Charge for Multiple Linking/Format Change Group

• Review related issues/problems and comments that have come up
• Propose a practice for linking records that reflect a format change
• Identify the places in CEG and CCM that need to be updated, and provide wording and examples
• Prepare documents (draft of the proposed practice, list of updates and examples)
• Present at CONSER Operations Meeting in May

Timelines
The documents (draft of the proposed practice, list of updates and examples) should be ready by Apr. 21.

Membership:
Co-chairs
Benjamin A Abrahamse and Liping Song

James Castrataro
Becky Culbertson
Lisa Furubotten
Elmer Klebs (LC/US ISSN office)
Judy Kuhagen (LC/PSD, she would just like to follow the discussion)
Jeffrey Myers-Hayer (LC serials cataloger)
Steve Shadle

Initial draft: Statement of the problem and potential solutions

Introduction: current practice

Current rules (CCM 16.4.1, LCRI 21.3:2) require the creation of a new record when an existing serial changes format (usually from print to electronic). A statement of this rule appears in the LCRIs:

"LC/PCC practice: …. conditions for making a new entry for a serial: … 2) The physical medium in which the serial is issued changes as expressed in the specific material designation in the physical description area (not a reproduction or the same serial in another manifestation, e.g., a braille edition)."

This rule and practice itself is not at issue. We are not contemplating changing the instruction to create a new record as a way of recording format changes. Rather, the purpose of this group is to determine the best practice for linking records for serials issued under the same title in various formats.

Current practice for recording a format change is to close off the older (usually print) format, create a new record for the newer (usually digital) format, and to link the two records using reciprocal MARC fields 785 (Reference to Subsequent Title)/780 (Reference to Earlier Title). Although this approach has the virtue of simplicity in application, it can lead to unwanted complications.

Problems with current practice:

1. It is not always clear at the point of cataloging that the appearance of a serial in a new format means the serial will no longer be issued in its older format. For example: a serial historically issued in print, but now on CD-ROM, may in fact continue to be issued in print.

Because CONSER cataloging takes place in a distributed environment, a format change can appear to one cataloging agency in the network—based on the terms of their local subscription or license–as a one-time event in the title's history; whereas another agency in the network, with a different subscription or license to the same produce, may view the same data as the ongoing complexity of a single title issued in two (or more) physical or digital formats.

Moreover, publishers and providers have been known to begin issuing a title in a new format (usually digital) at a certain point in time, and then to go back and retrospectively make volumes originally issued in print available in electronic format. In these circumstances treating a change in format as a "title change" has the potential to mislead, or at the very least confuse users as to what volumes are available to a particular collection in a given format.


2. Because CONSER Standard Record practice deprecates the use of uniform titles (MARC field 130) to disambiguate differences at the "manifestation-level" (that is—we no longer add uniform titles with the qualifier "Online"), it can be confusing to a user to see "title change" information when no such title-change is actually taking place.

Under current guidelines, a user may run across a record that says, in effect: "Title A ceased with 2011; continued by: Title A." Because there is no subfield or indicator in the 78x range specifically defined to express a change in format only, there is no widely-agreed upon practice for providing specific information regarding a format change in MARC. Previous to the adoption of CSR guidelines this problem was managed, almost accidentally, by using the uniform title as the target for the 785 of the earlier form of title: "Title A ceased with 2011; continued by Title A (Online)".


3. Conceptually, the use of "former" and "subsequent title" fields to record and express changes to a serial that occur on the level of format/manifestation is a step away from the FRBR conceptual model, and presumably conflicts with RDA.

The FRBR report (1998 [2008 rev.]) defines "title" as an attribute of three of the four interlocking "Type 1 Entities"–that is, Work, Expression, and Manifestation–that constitute the universe "functional" bibliographic data. Although correlations between FRBR entities and CONSER practice are not yet fully developed, it seems reasonable to assume that the serials-based concept of a "title change" is, in the FRBR idiom, a "Work-to-Work relationship" (cf. FBRR report p. 63, " A basic premise of the work-to-work relationship is that two different works have been recognized to exist; that is, the intellectual or artistic content of one work has been judged sufficiently different from the other to constitute a separate work.")

By treating a change of format (a "Manifestation-to-Manifestation" relationship) as a change in title, CONSER practice is out of alignment with FRBR/RDA, and therefore does not take advantage of the conceptual clarity achieved by the FRBR model. Another way of putting this is: title change is an event that impacts on the user's ability to "Find" and "Identify" a given document (functions that are mainly though perhaps not exclusively fulfilled by work-level data rather than manifestation-level data), whereas change in format primarily impacts the user's ability to "Select" and "Obtain" a document. As one CONSER cataloger expresses it, "…when print ceases in favor of online, a new/different serial work is not expressed. The print manifestation ceases, the online manifestation continues...the work itself does not cease … if we generally figure that 780/785 is more reflective of a change of work (which it really is when there are no record/control numbers in the linking field so you're not pointing to a specific manifestation), then it's not necessary to use 780/785 in the case where print ceases in favor of online and there's no change in the serial title." (Steve Shadle, email, 3/21/2011).


Potential solutions/responses:

1.
Continue with current practice (linking format change via 780/785 fields) but come up with a defined way of indicating to the user that this is a format change. This could be done through a note in |i ("relationship information") or |n ("note"), or through some other method.

2.
Restrict the use of 78x fields to "work-level" changes in the title only, and use 776 fields (Additional Physical Form Entry) exclusively when recording the appearance or existence of a title in another format.

When a title originally issued in one format begins or is discovered to be issued in another format, the cataloger should create a record for the title under its new format, and connect the two with reciprocal 776 fields. First indicator: 0 (display note); second: 8 (no display constant). Add a note in subfield i (Relationship information (R)) to indicate the format of the record that the 776 is targeting. If known, add chronological designations of the span of publication in the targeted record in $d (Place, publisher, and date of publication (NR)). The cataloger may also add a 580 Linking Entry Complexity Note (R) to explain the cessation of a title in a format.
Example:
1242732
245:00: $a Bulletin of the atomic scientists.
580: : $a Issues for 2009- published only in online version.
776:08: $i Online version: $t Bulletin of the atomic scientists $x 1938-3282 $w (DLC) 2006238205 $w (OCoLC)37476498


37476498
245:00: $a Bulletin of the atomic scientists [electronic resource].
776:08: $i Print version, -2008: $a Bulletin of the atomic scientists $d 1946-2008 $x 0096-3402 $w (DLC) 48034039 $w (OCoLC)1242732

3.
Use MARC field 787 (Other Relationship Entry) when recording the appearance or existence of a title in another format.

If a cataloger has a title in one format, and knows that it has previously been issued in another format: connect the two records using reciprocal 787 (Other relationship) fields, and specify the nature of the relationship in $i. Use the $d to indicate the known date span of publications of the two formats.

59671977
245:00: $a World unmanned aerial vehicle systems : $b market profile and forecast / $c Steven J. Zaloga, analyst and David R. Rockwell, analyst.
787:08: $i Continued on CD-ROM: $t World unmanned aerial vehicle systems $d <2011>- $w (DLC) 2011242216 $w (OCoLC) 706505071


706505071
245:00: $a World unmanned aerial vehicle systems $h [electronic resource] : $b market profile and forecast.
787:08: $i Continues print: $t World unmanned aerial vehicle systems $d <2003> $w (OCoLC) 59671977