Cataloging and Classification Committee
Technical Services Special Interest Section
Task Group on Replacement Volumes Update
December 17, 2003
Members: Barbara Bohl, George Prager, Ann Sitkin, Regina Wallen, Kathy Winzer, Ellen McGrath (chair)
This Task Group was formed immediately prior to the AALL conference in Seattle in July 2003 as a result of an e-mail message from Judy Kuhagen (Library of Congress) requesting AALL's assistance. There was an open discussion of the e-mail message from Ms. Kuhagen during the TS-SIS Cataloging and Classification issues roundtable session in Seattle. The Task Group then met in-person. Subsequent discussions were conducted via e-mail between the members of the Task Group.
The task as viewed by the Task Group is to determine the best approach to cataloging replacement volume sets.
Law catalogers have been treating replacement volume sets in basically the same way that they treat loose-leafs for many years, long before the existence of the current category of integrating resources was defined. This approach was based upon the document issued by Adele Hallam in June 1986, entitled: Bibliographic Description of Multivolume Publications Which Include Replacement Volumes: Major Points of Divergence from Traditional Cataloging-A Draft. Many law catalogers received a copy of this document as a result of their attendance at the session where Ms. Hallam presented it on July 7, 1986 during the AALL conference in Washington, DC or at a subsequent AALL cataloging workshop or simply as shared material from their law cataloger colleagues. They also receive it indirectly on an ongoing basis by consulting Cataloging Legal Literature, in which the authors, Melody Busse Lembke and Rhonda K. Lawrence, have incorporated Ms. Hallam's document.
It is important to set the stage so that it is understood that many law catalogers have been applying what has now become the integrating resources approach to replacement volumes sets for a very long time. In the simplest of terms, this means that for replacement volume sets, all areas of the description are based upon the latest title page, except for the date, just as with loose-leafs. The MARC monograph format is used and there is no special MARC encoding. Throughout this document, whenever the phrase "replacement volumes" is used, it carries with it the integrating resource approach that law catalogers have been applying since 1986.
So this was the starting point for the Task Group. As the discussion proceeded, it became clear that, in practice, there were varying applications of this approach among the members of the Group. This, along with the fact that the AACR2 framework had changed so drastically last year, made the task of this Group very complex.
The Task Group focused first on how to approach its task. The relevant format options for cataloging replacement volumes were felt to be:
Monographs OR Integrating resources OR Serials
It was quickly determined that replacement volumes just "feel" more like integrating resources and so that approach would be the best to work from. Not to mention that law catalogers have been applying this approach with good results for 17 years.
In thinking of a representative list of titles which could be examined, the Task Group focused on some types of legal material that are often published as replacement volume sets, namely codes (or compiled statutes), digests, and encyclopedias. These are types of material where the information within is extensive and does not simply add on chronologically, as is the case with court reports, which are cataloged as serials. Instead the information changes randomly within the existing pieces, so the updating of those pieces happens in no particular order.
The Task Group looked to gather titles that were rather straightforward, as well as complex replacement volume situations. An indication of complexity is usually experienced by law catalogers when a new piece is received and there is some confusion about which bibliographic record to check it in on. This indicates that something on the new piece is out of synch with the bibliographic record as it currently exists, thus necessitating that the piece gets bumped out of the check-in queue and given to a cataloger for maintenance on the bibliographic record.
As a general rule, digests and encyclopedias are pretty straightforward in terms of their receipt, with the most common change being the publisher. Codes are typically straightforward also, except for the infrequent occasions when a new code starts over because its issuing legislative body has reenacted or recodified it.
Example titles:
- West's Illinois digest 2d
- Texas civil practice and remedies code
- Federal practice and procedure (referred to as "Wright & Miller")
- Antitrust law (referred to as Areeda)
- Massachusetts practice series, v. 4, Taxation
It came to the Group's attention that there is a similar medical title: Handbook of physiology (Bethesda, Md.). Although it may be the case that this is simply a series that can either be handled as a serial or each title within the series analyzed, which is not the same situation as the legal titles above.
Many replacement volume titles that have a long history of being issued reflect a situation that is called gradual replacement or simultaneous publication. This is a situation in which the publisher begins over in reissuing the entire set, often with an edition statement distinguishing between the two parts of the overall current set. Take for example the current title, West's Illinois digest 2d. In its publishing history, it began as Illinois digest. But in 1982, the publisher decided to reissue the entire set, so it started issuing bound volumes with the title West's Illinois digest 2d. No more Illinois digest bound volumes were published from that point on, but there were pocket parts and supplements issued to update the bound Illinois digest volumes that had not been replaced by a bound West's Illinois digest 2d volume yet. Many law libraries have two separate bibliographic records for these titles, which seems to work well for a couple reasons. The Illinois digest covers cases from 1818, while West's Illinois digest 2d covers cases since 1938. So the coverage is different, which also means that both sets must be retained in order provide coverage back to 1818.
In other cases, the changeover is not so clear cut. Take the Wright & Miller example. The "current" set bears these edition statements: volume 1, 3rd ed.; volume 3, 2nd ed.; volume 5, 2nd ed.; volume 10, 3rd ed. and so on. The publisher issues the volumes in such a mixture of editions that receiving them is very confusing if there is a separate bibliographic record for each edition. In practice, law catalogers have learned that one record with the latest title page information is less confusing in such situations.
The issue that comes up in the comparison between these two sets is how many bibliographic records "works" best. In the Illinois digest example, two records are needed for the reasons stated above. That is not the case with Wright & Miller. This issue of how many records is a key issue. It must be resolved either to define clearly when one record vs. more is called for or to allow flexibility to the cataloger in choosing how many records. This issue typically hinges on the edition information carried by the replacement volumes.
There is another factor that comes into play. A big issue for law libraries is whether or not superseded volumes/pieces are retained once they have been replaced. Generally law firm libraries retain only the current pieces in the set and discard the superseded pieces, while academic law libraries retain the superseded pieces for historical research purposes, sometimes in a separate place from the current set. Between these extremes, there are many variations, such as some libraries retain superseded pieces for some titles, but not all. But it is important that whatever replacement approach is taken, it must accommodate all situations in terms of the retention of superseded volumes.
During the open discussion roundtable in Seattle, it quickly became clear that it is too difficult to designate an "amount of integratingness" to a resource. Identifying a number of parts or a percentage of the overall whole is too difficult and variable from one set to another and/or one publisher to another. The Task Group's discussion reinforced this repeatedly and raised some questions:
1. How does a law cataloger "know" a title will/might be a replacement volume set?
Typically this assessment is based on what has already been discussed. The material is of a type that is in a large set that needs random parts of it to be updated frequently, such as a code, digest, or encyclopedia. Or if it does not fall into those material categories, it has a history of being published as replacement volumes. Not too many new replacement volume sets spring up. This sort of historical/material-type based approach seems to work based on past experience, rather than waiting for a certain percentage of the set to be issued. Law catalogers are unable to pin down a certain amount of a publication that makes it "integrating," though they do seem to be able to recognize the circumstance when it occurs.
2. What are the ramifications of guessing wrong?
In other words, what will happen if a title is cataloged as an integrating resource on one bibliographic record, but it turns out it should not be? And conversely, what if a title is cataloged as a monograph, most likely with 2 or more separate bibliographic records, and then later is discovered to be a replacement volume situation that should be on one record?
All catalogers (and especially law catalogers) are becoming more accustomed to performing maintenance on bibliographic records and this is made easier by automated catalogs. If a title is cataloged as an integrating resource, when it should not be, there should not be any negative consequences. All the necessary information will be present in the one bibliographic record, though it may be in a slightly different place. It could easily be split out into multiple records.
On the other hand, if separate bibliographic records are created and then the necessity of collapsing them into one record occurs, that will create some confusion, particularly in the bibliographic utilities where libraries do not have the capability of collapsing records. This gets back to that key issue of how many records mentioned previously.
The Task Group kept returning to a discussion of whether mixed editions situations should also be handled as replacement volumes. An example of this is the title Droit civil by Paul Didier (tome 4 is 2e. ed. mise a jour (1999); tome 3 is 1. ed. (1999), etc.). This (and other) foreign title examples seem to be characterized by the common trait that the mixing of editions did not occur for some time, until a number of volumes had been published. The Group never resolved the issue of whether or not these would be suited to the replacement volumes approach.
So the Task Group came to the conclusion that replacement volumes are best handled as integrating resources. But the dilemma is how to fit this into the existing framework?
Here is the definition of integrating resource from AACR2: "A bibliographic resource that is added to or changed by means of updates that do not remain discrete and are integrated into the whole. Integrating resources can be finite or continuing."
This definition fits replacement volume sets perfectly except for the part "that do not remain discrete." In replacement volume sets, the updates remain discrete, so the current set consists of items with different looking title pages. As opposed to one updated title page, as is the case with loose-leafs.
Some possible approaches based upon the discussion of the Task Group to date appear to be:
- Define a new category within continuing resources (replacement resource), modeled on the integrating resource definition, but omitting the "discrete" part. This would be a parallel category to integrating resources and serials.
- Or define a subset category under integrating resources to cover replacement volumes.
- Or edit LCRI 2.2 to include replacement volume sets under "one bibliographic record-edition area" with instructions to transcribe the edition statement of the latest volume.
- Or some combination of the above.
The Task Group now respectfully requests feedback from the Library of Congress as to which approach would be most feasible.
Attachments: Judy Kuhagen's e-mail message (6/26/03)
Adele Hallam's draft document (1986)
LCRI 2.2
WEBMASTER'S NOTE: Attachments are not included as part of this document.
Glossary
Here are some existing definitions, simply gathered, in no particular order:
Integrating resource (from AACR2/2002 revision): A bibliographic resource that is added to or changed by means of updates that do not remain discrete and are integrated into the whole. Integrating resources can be finite or continuing. Examples of integrating resources include updating loose-leafs and updating Web sites.
Replacement volumes (from Cataloging Legal Literature): To keep a work-such as a multi-volume monograph title-up-to-date, a publisher may combine all of the previously separately issued supplements and incorporate them with material from the original volume of a work. This new volume becomes a replacement volume for the original one. These revised or replacement volumes can often cause confusion, however, as to whether they are volumes of a new revised edition, or meant to be replacement volumes for the existing edition. It may take several years to determine whether the publisher's intent is to issue a new edition one volume at a time, or merely replace superseded volumes of an on-going set. Replacement volumes can also result in additional numbered volumes to a set when a single volume is replaced by two or more. These new volumes are often A and B volumes, i.e., volume 1 is replaced by 1A and 1B.
Replacement volume (from Hallam draft): A revised bibliographic volume that replaces an earlier volume of a multivolume publication. Generally, the revision incorporates additions from pocket supplements or supplements previously issued separately. A replacement volume, in turn, is typically updated by pocket parts and supplemental pamphlets. These features allow the publisher to update a multipart publication through continuing editing, introducing what is new and removing what is no longer valid.
The advantage of the replacement volume technique, namely, the capacity to disseminate up-to-date information, may, however, also greatly affect the bibliographic record, for it is often necessary to adjust that record to reflect updates to the publication, especially when such updates result in changes in relation to the title, authorship, etc.
In this draft, the terms "replacement volume," "recompiled volume," and "revised volume" are used interchangeably.
Supplement (from AACR2): An item, usually issued separately, that complements one already published by bringing up-to-date or otherwise continuing the original or by containing a special feature not included in the original. The supplement has a formal relationship with the original as expressed by common authorship, a common title or subtitle, and/or a stated intention to continue or supplement the original.
Supplements (from Cataloging Legal Literature): [First, it gives the AACR2 definition, and then adds the following.] Some of the forms in which legal supplements are issued include: pocket parts or pocket supplements (intended to be inserted in a slit in the back cover of a book); pamphlet supplements (paperback publications which may be free-standing or filed in a binder); supplement volumes (may be numbered or unnumbered, bound or loose-leaf); and releases or revised pages (intended to be filed in a loose-leaf volume). Supplements are often cumulative, intended to be replaced when more updating is needed.