Questions from SCCTP Workshop: Apr. 3-4, 2006



1.      Serial or monograph: If only one issue of a serial is ever published, would you still describe the publication as a serial?

Response during session: Yes, this would be considered a serial because it meets the definition—at time of publication, it had no pre-determined conclusion. (c.f., CCM discussion, 2.1.1)




[JDL]  I agree; it should be treated as a serial.

2.      Source of title: Some current Chinese journals have begun to publish the publication data at the front of the journal. Can this still be considered a colophon, and if not, what would you call this?


[HC] I have not seen such publications yet, but if imprint information is given, for instance, on verso of cover, I think it is still called colophon.


[TW] If a variant title is found on verso on t.p., I would call that page as “verso of t.p.” rather than colophon.


[JDL] A colophon by definition comes at the end of a publication (regardless of whether a publication is read from western front-to-back or eastern back-to-front).  If at the front, I would call it “verso of t.p.” or “p. 2 of cover” or just consider it an unnamed part of the preliminaries.


3.      Frequency: How should I record frequency for a Japanese newspaper that is published twice a day? Would this still be considered a “daily”?


[TM] Yes, I think it is considered daily.


[JDL]  Yes, consider it a daily.


The following information is from the old Newspaper Cataloging and Union Lisitng Manual.  It may not be your situation exactly, but I believe you can apply the same philosophy:  if multiple issues of a daily newspaper basically present the same content (even though some articles may be updated, added, or dropped), consider them to be "editions" of the same issue.


"Chronological editions are different distributions of the same issue.  Do not catalog different chronological editions as separate newspapers requiring separate bibliographic records.  Do not record a statement of chronological edition in field 250, subfield #a.  For example, The Washington Post is distributed daily in three editions.  The first run is called the Capital edition.  The second run is the Late City edition and is printed for home delivery.  The third run is the Final ed. for street box and newsstand sales.  Do not catalog these editions as separate newspapers and do not transcribe these edition statements in field 250, subfield #a."


My suggestion would be to code the FF Frequency as "daily" (d) and Regularity as "normalized" (n) and 310  Daily (in morning and evening eds.) — or whatever wording makes the most sense.




4.      Punctuation for numbering: To what extent does the 362 field follow transcription? If a journal displays the issue numbering as: 1994.1 // spring 1994, then should the decimal punctuation be changed (e.g., to 1994:1 (spring 1994)) for clarity? Or, should the punctuation reflect what is on the piece?


[HC] Yes, it should be changed to: 1994:1 (spring 1994)


[TW] I would change to: 1994, 1 (spring 1994)


[JDL]  Either  1994:1 (spring 1994)  or  1994, 1 (spring 1994)  would be OK.  Style of punctuation (other than ISBD) is not prescribed.

5.      Notes with Romanization: The CPSO guidelines for CJK examples include many more situations where original script is used than those in CEG Appendix O. Are there any efforts underway to review CEG Appendix O in light of the CPSO CJK examples for monographs ( )?  E.g., Quoted 500 notes in Romanized form—could these also have parallel original script equivalent fields, for serials?


[TW] No efforts are being made to review CEG Appendix O. At LC, parallel original script fields are given only for the 580 field for original cataloging. However, if existing records include parallel original script data for other 5XX fields, we will leave them in the record for the purpose of copy-cataloging. 


[JDL]  CEG, App. O will be revised to reflect OCLC changes resulting from the implementation of Connexion.  We will review the overall contents at that time.  We would appreciate receiving suggestions and additional examples from CONSER participants.


6.      Major changes v. minor changes: What is the definition of “word”? Should catalogers use the Romanization to determine a “word”?
[For example, in Chinese, geographical entities such as Beijing are Romanized as multisyllabic words, but other semantic units, such as “大學,” are Romanized as separate words: “da xue.”]
Response during session: Follow Romanization—“da xue” is considered two “words,” even though it represents a single semantic unit.


Yes, catalogers should use Romanization to determine a “word.”


[JDL]  I agree.

Comment about reprints: Many of the participants raised questions about the description of reprint publications

7.      Reprints: What does “Fukkokuban” represent in the 130 qualifier of OCLC #48747176? Is it an edition?


[TM] “Fukkokuban” apparently represents an edition, but I would not add a uniform title only because the item is a reprint edition. I have been adding uniform titles to match the original, and to distinguish from different serials.


[TW] I have been adding uniform titles for reprint editions with “Fukkokuban” as a qualifier.


[JDL]  We do not use uniform title headings to distinguish reprints from the original publication.


8.      Reprints: What does the 300 field subfield $a represent for reprints that cover a serial that changes title? Should the 300 field include the reprint volumes containing the just the title described by the record?
Response during session: The number of volumes should match the extent of the title described. For example, if a 50 volume reprint edition covers Title A, Title B, and Title C; and if Title A is in the first 3 reprint volumes, then code 300 field as:
3 v. : …


Yes, the 300 field should include the reprint volumes containing just the title described by the record.


[JDL]  I agree.  Fields 260 and 300 are based on the reprint and should cover just the volumes that are appropriate to the title proper and the numeric/chronologic period covered by that title.

9.      Reprints: Japanese military serials originally in print were microfilmed. Then the microform was converted by a commercial publisher to a facsimile reprint. Is the reprint considered a reprint of the microform or a reprint of the original print?
Response during session: “Originally published…” should refer to the original print publication rather than to the microform reproduction. But a note to the effect that the reprint was reproduced from microform may be added.

The reprint is considered as a reprint of the original print, and a note to the effect that the reprint was reproduced from microform may be added.


[JDL]  I agree.




Additional Questions/discussions from SCCTP Advanced Serials Workshop

April 3-4, Berkeley, CA



1)       How to record chronological designation in unformatted numbering note (362 1): 

·        [Response during session]: CEG Appendix O Specific Guidelines #7 says “Give non-Roman script data only for formatted beginning/ending designation statements.”  Appendix O gives no clear guideline for 362 1. However, since it is a note field, we could follow the the guidelines for note fields to give the dates in English (CEG Appendix O General Guidelines #6: “Non-Roman script data should never be given for note fields other than 580.  These fields are given in English…).   With this, the next question is whether the dates are given in English or in Romanized form? 


                  362 1   Began in minguo 73 nian 4 yue [Apr. 1984].

 OR,     362 1   Began in Apr. 1984


[JDL]  Either of the above is OK, but in the first example I would insert a colon before citing the chronologic designation as it appeared on the piece (i.e.,  Began with:  minguo 73 nian 4 yue [Apr. 1984].


·        [To CONSER]:  Please provide clarification in Appendix O including examples for unformatted 362 1.  We are confused by various practice including 362 1 with parallel non-Roman scripts in existing CONSER records such as the following:


362 1  Began with 創刊號 (Sept. 2003).

362 1  Began with chuang kan hao (Sept. 2003).


[JDL]  We do not give non-roman script data for unformatted 362 fields because it is considered a note  and we do not give non-roman notes except for field 580 (we are considering permitting non-roman “quoted” notes without giving Romanized equivalent).


2)       “Inaugural” issue (CCM 8.5.3):  Many Chinese, Japanese, and Korean journals call the first issue as the “inaugural issue”.  CCM 8.5.3 says:  “ If the first issue is called “premier issue” or another term designating “first,” use the term in the designation only when there is no other numeral or chronological designation that can be used”. 



·        Please review the conflicting example found in CEG Appendix O:


                        App. O Specific guidelines #7 second example:

362    0#  Chuang kan hao (1984 nian 12 yue)-

362  0#   創刊號 (1984 12 )-


                        Note:  創刊號“ = “Inaugural issue” in Chinese


[Response at the Workshop]:

·        The above record should be revised to read as follows:

                         362   0#   1984 12 -

                         362   0#   1984 nien 12 yue


·        And may it be modified to reflect designation used in the later issues when possible:

                         362 0#  [Di 1 qi di 1 hao] (1984 nien 12 yue)-    

                         362 0#   [ 1期第1 ] (1984 12 )-


            [JDL]  I agree with Workshop response.


3)       Note fields given in English or in romanization:  CEG: “Non-Roman script data should never be given for note fields.  These fields are always given in English.”  (Appendix. O Specific Guidelines #6).  Should the numbering designations in romanized form or in English?  Should we give the romanized form of the terms from the item supply English terms for notes?  Which of the following notes are correct?


515      Vols. for 1999- called also no. 3

515      Vols. for 1999- called also di 3 hao


500   Zhu bian: [name of person in romanized form]

500   Editor-in-chief:  [name of person in romanized form]


550   Zhu ban dan wei: [name of the corporate body in romanized form]

550   Sponsored by: [name of the corporate body in romanized form]


[Response during session]:  Prefer the second example in each pair as above.


[JDL]  I agree with Workshop response:  prefer the second example in all cases.


4)       Numbering in “Description based on” and “Latest issue consulted” notes (500): Although the 5XX note fields are given in English only with the exception of 580, the CONSER cataloging manual says to “record numbering [in DBO and LIC notes] as it would be given in 362 0” (CCM 8.1.1 c. “Description based on” note), and non-roman scripts are given in field 362 0.   Should we record the numbering in non-roman scripts or Romanization?


[JDL]  Romanized only.  


5)       Distinctive titles in a reprint series:  A reprinted monographic series including more than 20 distinctive titles, can we use 505 content notes to list the distinctive titles in the series? 


[Response during session]:  In general, 505 content notes is not used in a serial record because the content of a serial changes frequently, and MARC 505 field is not included in CEG.  With a regular print reprints, you may follow the cataloging rules to give any information about the original in 580 note. Or, you may choose to analyze the set and trace the series on each monographic record.  Another thought, please make sure the series is not a multi-volume monograph set which had a pre-determined conclusion. 


[JDL]  I agree with Workshop response.


6)       How to provide access to distinctive titles on serial issues?        

An economical report journal publishes each issue focusing on certain geographic regions.  Each issue bears the common title and a title for the featured region.  We have been using 246s to record distinctive title on each issue.  Are there other options available to provide access to these titles? 


[Response during session]:  create a serial record for the journal and analytics for selected issues to bring out the regional focus in both title fields and subject access.  Do not treat the regions as a part title otherwise, you will have a title change with each new issue.


[JDL]  I agree with Workshop response.


7)       Question about numbering in OCLC#54904938


245 00 印刻文學生活誌 = ǂb INK literary monthly.

245 00 Yin ke wen xue sheng huo zhi = ǂb INK literary monthly.


362 1  Began with 創刊號 (Sept. 2003).   [JDL]  Delete non-roman field.

362 1  Began with chuang kan hao (Sept. 2003).


500     Description based on: 2 (Oct. 2003); title from cover.

500     Latest issue consulted: 29 (Jan. 2006).


515          Issues for <2-> called also <chuang kan 2 hao->; issues for <no.14-> also called di 1 juan di 2 qi-


[JDL]  Note should read:  Issues for <Oct. 2003-> called also <chuang kan 2 hao->; issues for <????> also called di 1 juan di 2 gi-      (assuming that this is in addition to the first, otherwise “called also” di 1 juan di 2 gi- ).



515    Chuang kan hao preceded by an issue called chuang kan qian hao, published in Aug. 2003.




·        According to CEG Appendix O, non-roman scripts are not given in unformatted 362 1 field.  The record should be revised to read:  362 1 Began with Sept. 2003. 


[JDL]  Correct.


·        Our library holds the Chuang kan hao, the first issue, therefore, we can update the record to reflect numbering pattern of the later issues in 362 as:


362    0  [1] (Sept. 2003)-


[JDL]  Yes.  And delete the DBO note.


·        How to label the spine for the “chuang kan qian hao” (pilot issue) that  precedes the inaugural issue (See notes in 2nd 515 field in record)


[Response during session]:  may consider to use “[0]” .


[JDL]  I agree with Workshop response.


·        This “chuang kan qian hao” has been cataloged separately on a monographic record in OCLC (#63149654).  Is this a valid practice?


[Response during session]:  I would not catalog a pilot issue without a distinctive title as a monograph.


[JDL]  I agree with Workshop response.