Slide 55

Julie Su’s Presentation Slides

Questions and= Answers for CONSER Standard Records Workshop at CEAL 2009 Pre-Conference=

Slide 55=

Q: Should we use square brackets around years in 246 field?

A: If you don&= #8217;t know the first or the last issue when the title variation occurred, angle brackets < > are used= ; use no brackets if the exact date or issue of variation is in hand.

Slide 62

Q: Would you include 300 field inf= ormation for a ceased title?

A: When editing existing records, do not delete $a v. in MARC= 300 field. When closing existing records fill the total # of volumes in MARC fi= eld 300, subfield $a if you have the information,= and are using formatted 362 fields.

Slide 65=

Q: Spaces around numbers?

A: Please foll= ow the current spacing practice in CJK language bibliographic records. No spaces around numbers in C &= ; J script fields, but spaces are given for nonroman fields that consist solely= of Korean hangul, or hangul and ideographs;= Spaces around numbers are given in roman parallel fields for all CJK records. Refe= r to AACR2 Chapter 12 CJK examples.

Slide 66=

Q: Should we use a semicolon (;) or a colon (:) in “Description based on” and “Latest issue consulted” notes?

A: Always end = the phrase of “Description based on” and “Latest issue consulted” with a colon (: ), followed by the numbe= r / chronology of the source with the initial alpha letter capitalized. Use a semi-colon to separate the numbering/chronology data and the title source information.

Example: Description based on: 1976; title from t.p.

&nbs= p; Latest iss= ue consulted: V. 23, no. 1 (Mar. 2007).

CJK example:

&n= bsp; = ;Latest issue consulted: 第10-輯

Latest issue consulted: Dai 10-shu.

= Not =

&n= bsp; Latest issue consulted: 第10-輯

&n= bsp; Latest issue consulted: dai 10-shu.

Discont= inued practi= ce (Nov. 2008)

= &nb= sp; Description based on first i= ssue

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Latest = issue consulted: last issue

Additional comments consulted:

You are certainly right th= at notes are not prescriptive. But consistent coding improves the behavior of = OCLC macros; so we’ve generally been adding a colon after BOTH the “DBO” and “LIC” phrases in notes. If a word follows= the colon, we are capitalizing it (e.g., Description based on: Vol. 1, no. 1 (J= an. 2008)….) That way, we can use Robert (Brem= er, OCLC)’s name authority macro without fiddling.

--> Description based o= n: 1 (1977); title from …

--> Latest issue consul= ted: Dai 10-shu.

Slide 70=

Q: Began “with” or “in” in 362= ?

A: We have seen both usages;&n= bsp; however, Began with is used more often when enumeration is gi= ven with or without chronology. – Julie

Additional comments consulted:

I don’t know whether anyone else reads “Began in” and “Began with” as ha= ving different meanings. But to me, they do mean different things. E.g., “Began with v. 1, no. 1 (winter 1994)” : I would read this as a precise state= ment naming the beginning issue. E.g., “Began with 1989/1990”: s= ame thing here. BUT: “Began in 1994.” This gives the year that the publication began, not the numbering. (This may be taken from the ISSN Port= al, for example, or some other source outside of the issue.) And it could turn = out that the actual designation on the piece was “1993/1994”

CONSER: Most examples in the CEG show 362 1 without the colon as well, I don't think it matters. (But I agree with the distinction made between "began with" and "began in" th= at matters
a great deal more) -- LEH=

&n= bsp;

Slide 77=

Q: “Issues for … also called”= or “Issues for … called also”? Perhaps “also called” i= s more natural.

A: 5XX fields = are not prescriptive. However, several examples in CEG use "also called", and = the same is also found in the SCCTP CSR workshop slide, "called also" is found in all the examples collected in Notes for serials cataloging 2nd ed (Geer & Caraway, 1998). Under section 515, Double numbering ( page 33).<= o:p>

Additional comments consulted

“Called also” or “also called”: I remember a while ago this came = up on the CONSER discussion list. Some said that “also called” was less grammatically correct than “called also.” But since I have also seen the note both ways, my conclusion is that some catalogers are not troubled by the difference in word order. Another grammatical concern is notes that begin with conjunctions (e.= g., the grammatically incorrect "Also called ... "= ;

versus the grammatically correct "Called also ..." - the first b= eing a conjunction, the second being an adverb).

[Note fro= m Julie: Wording in slide# 77 has now be= en changed as the result of the above comments; however, from the following CO= NSER comment, you will see that is subject to cataloger’s judgment. ]

CONSER: think the person quoted from the CONSER email list discussion
was really objecting to beginning sentences with "Also called" but not so with the words appearing that way in the middle of a sentence as in these examples. CONSER has ha= d the discussion many times over the years on, [and] have made changes back and f= orth and I am not sure it needs to be revisit it right now. -- LEH=

Slide 79 Clos= ing Option 2

Q: No “Began with”?

A: Because it’s updating on the existing record.=

Slide 81=

Q: No “ceased with” in 362?

A: This is the case of changing numbering system with = a new series, not the cease of publication.

Slide 87=

Q: Sequence of multiple 321?

A: Oldest one first not in reversed order. Input them in chronological order (earliest to latest) following field 310. -- CEG 310/321

Slide 98=

Q: Should we use “In” for language notes i= n MARC field 546? Past LC practice w= as to begin the note with “In” when giving a note for three or more languages; “In” is not necessary for two languages. Is this still the current LC pract= ice or not?

A: We have seen 546 notes with and without the word “in”. However, the confirmation from CONSER and examples in CONSER Cataloging Manual (2004) suppor= t the practice.

CONSER: I think there is= no change in practice; these notes still appear
either way in LC records. -- LEH

&n= bsp;

13.6.2. Form of the note

When including more than one language in= the note, give first the predominant language of the text. If there is no predominant language, give the languages in alphabetic order. Separate the languages by the word "and" in all cases (LCRI 1.7B2).

245 00 $a [Title in French only]=

546 ## $a Englis= h and French.

546 ## $a In French, G= erman, Italian, and Spanish.

Q: What is th= e note order when both 5xx and 546 are present?

A: Doesn’t the reformat function in Connexion rearrange note in numbering order?

Participants: N= o.   Field 546 should come after f= ield 500   Latest issue consulted note.=

Re: CONSER Cataloging Manual (2004)

13.2.5.= Order of notes

While AACR2 prescribes an order in which notes are to be given in the record, CONSER policy is to input notes in 5XX= tag order.

An exception is made for field 533 (Reproduction note) which is given as the l= ast 5XX field in a record for a reproduction.

5XX tag order<= /a>. If there= are multiple notes with the same tag, specifically those tagged 500, follow the order prescribed by AACR2. Input the "Description based on" note and/or the “Latest issue consulted” note as the last 500 note, even when the DBO is combined w= ith the Source of title note (which is one of the first notes prescribed by AACR2).

Workshop discussio= n: What do you like and dislike about CSR?

Like

-          Simplification of 246 indicator usage

-          Change of 006/007 subfields requirements

-          Elimination of redundant 5xx notes by using = the 7XX Linking fields to generate notes and perform linking functions.

Dislike

-          Redundancy of note fields (e.g. DBO and LIC required in addition to 362)

-          Possible confusion on series tracing;

-          With the changed new definition of first indicator, libraries that have no authorization to create a series authority record in the national file are left with no other options but use 490 0 wh= ich means “series not traced”.

-          What if a library wants to trace a series but finds no authority record available in the national file?

Post-Workshop disc= ussions:

Q 1: Regarding CSR new guidelines that = allow the transcription of vernacular number instead of converting it to Arabic numbe= r:

According to the old rule, vernacular numbering should= be changed to Arabic numbers. So we will indicate like제 1집in nonroman and Che 1-chip in roman field if the item shows3= 228; 일집. So the record shows both field using Arabian numbers. Since CSR gives opti= on not to convert it to Arabic numeral, we can indicate like제 일집 in nonroman and the roman would be Che ilchip which is spelled out f= orm. The same rule applies to field 362 and MARC 500 DBO and LIC notes.

If we transcribe [vernacular numbers] following new [C= SR] optional choice, it would be hard to recognize the numbering quickly for catalogers and users. Arabic numbers are easy and quick to recognize.

Is it then up to the individual catalogers either to translate the numbers to Arabic or not?  Or we get a consensus am= ong CJK community and make an exceptional rule as special materials? =

A: Yes, I total= ly agree with you. Unlike the CS= R for Western language numbering, the CSR new guideline which allow for recording vernacular numbers as found DOES NOT benefit the CJK re= cords nor simplify the cataloging process. On the contrary, it adds the burden of transliteration of vernacular numbers in the roman parallel field; and it potentially hinders the users&#= 8217; ability to quickly recognize or identify the item.

It is my opinion that CJK materials are best treated and recording of numbers is the easiest if we continue following the traditional AACR2 rules that call for converting numbers to Arabic numerals.

CSR documentation recognizes (see Principle page), that CSR may not apply well for legal materials, rare serial and other special types of resource.

The CEG Appendix O Introduction paragraph #2: CJK serials and the CO= NSER standard record (CSR)section specifically says that   "Catalogers of special types of serials such as nonroman script serial= s, rare serials, legal materials and newspapers, have made it clear that eleme= nts beyond the basic requirements of the CSR are often needed for these resources"

Moreover, guidelines for 362 1# in the CONSER Standard Record Materi= als Application Profile (MAP) says: “Numbers may be transcribed as found = or they may be recorded as Arabic numerals, whichever is easier”. It is my personal opinion that using Arabic numerals in both roman and nonroman fiel= ds is easier than transcribing vernacular CJK numbers in the nonroman parallel field and romanizing it in the roman parallel field. I trust that CJK catalogers will exercise their best cataloging judgment in recording numbers in field 362 1= #.

Q#2:=

What is the best practice for catalogers who follows CSR guidelines for all the descriptive fields but wants to use AACR2 convention for numbering? Which option is be= tter? a) Using 362 0 and formatted data in an otherwise CSR record, OR, b) u= sing unformatted field 362 1, DBO, LIC, but using numbering data following the A= ACR2 convention in a CSR record?

CONSER: my preference is for the unformatted 362 fields, DBO, LIC. But I think that=
some catalogers feel very strongly about using the formatted 362 0 and we have not "outlawed" it. So there are some newly created CONSER records
that contain it. – LEH<= o:p>

Q#3:

If a serials has a chronological designation that is different from the publication date, and the CSR record omits the publication date in 260 $c, would the publication date be transcribed in 362 1 and DBO no= tes as follows?

    362 1 Began with = 2004, published in 2005.
    500      Description based on: 2004, published in 2005; title from cover.
    500      Latest issue consulted: 2005, published in 2006.

CONSER: Your examples make sense to me – LEH

[Note: Answers by Julie Su with additional unofficial comments from another CONSER CSR/ SCCTP trainer, and/or official CONSER responses from LC (follow= ed by --LEH). ]