This summer passed in a blur of professional meetings, brief vacations, and frenzied but decidedly unsuccessful efforts to catch up on the day-to-day work in the intervals between these more scintillating activities. So for this issue of TSLL, I'll confine myself to a discussion of a somewhat problematic treaty heading which ended up occupying far more of my time than I should care to disclose publicly.

Our library recently received a 1996 treatise by Jose Roberto Dromi entitled: Acuerdo Mercosur-Union Europea. This book contained a discussion and full text of an agreement between the two entities given in the title and their member countries. As an authority record had not yet been created for this agreement, I decided to give it a try. Throughout the work, the ostensibly bilateral nature of the treaty was stressed. At the beginning of the text of the treaty, the full Spanish name was given as: Acuerdo marco interregional de cooperacion entre la Comunidad Europea y sus estados miembros y el Mercado Comun del Sur y sus estados partes. To the uninitiated, this certainly sounds like an agreement between the member governments of two internationa1 intergovernmental bodies acting collectively, which would be covered by AACR 21.35B: Agreements contracted by international intergovernmental bodies. But what then are the two entities in question?

"MERCOSUR (Organization)" would be one of the two (n 92046250). What would be the other one? Here things get a bit messy. Looking in the national authority file (NAF), we find 4 seemingly related headings none of which are bibliographically linked to the others: European Community (n 80066947), European Communities (n 80066946), European Economic Community (n 79054869), and European Union (n 94097877). The first two have notes that "Publications by and about the common institutions of the three European communities (Euratom, European Coal and Steel Community, European Economic Community) are entered directly under the names of the institutions and services." Thanks. What about using "European Economic Community"? This is the only one of the 4 authority records which is coded to allow use of its 1XX field as a main or added entry (fixed field 008/14 "a"). At first I thought I was on the right track, as the NAF contains several apropos examples, such as: (n 85072417: European Economic Community. $t Treaties, etc. $g Grupo Andino, $d 1983 Dec. 17). This seems quite similar to the agreement given in our work. However, leaping to field 83 of the brobdingnagian authority record for the European Economic Community, there's the following note from the Yearbook of international organization:

...provisions adopted in the Maastricht Treaty, 1992, with reference to treaties establishing the EEC replaced the term "European Economic Community" by "European Community" throughout, and the "EEC" officially became the "EC"; although no formal merger of the 3 communities has taken place, there are good reasons for regarding them as one unit: European Communities; cf. editor's note on confusion of terms referring to European Community, European Union, etc.

I confess I read this note a few times without fully grasping its meaning, even though it contained information I more or less already knew (at least subconsciously). What's relevant here is that for works dealing with the period after the Treaty on European Union in 1992, we need to think in terms of the European Union and European Union countries, rather than the European Economic Community and European Economic Community countries. But when we refer to the authority record for the "European Union", we are reminded that "European Union" can be used only as a subject heading, not as a corporate body.

So, we have an agreement between MERCOSUR and its member countries and the European Union (not a corporate body) and its member countries. Therefore, we must apply AACR 21.35A2: Treaties between four or more governments, which instructs us to enter under title or uniform title (25.16B2):

"Use as the uniform title for a treaty, etc., between four or more parties the name by which the treaty is known. Use an English name if there is one. Add, in parentheses, the year, earlier year, or earliest year of signing."

I did a quick Google search and found the English text of the agreement on the SICE WWW site, so I was able to establish the heading (no2002060469) as:

Interregional Framework Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of One Part, and the Southern Common Market and its Party States, of the Other Part $d (1995)

It wasn't a problem to give cross references to the various forms of the Spanish name of the agreement which appeared in our book; I wanted to give some kind of name title cross reference from MERCOSUR, but that would require a corresponding subfield "g" with "European Union", and, given the strictures on the authority record for the European Union, it was clearly not possible, at least not legally.

In retrospect, the phrase "Union Europea" in the book's title should have led me right away to AACR 25.16B2 "Four or more parties", but I let myself get led astray by the actual name of the treaty as given in the Spanish and English texts which practically shouted "Bilateral".

But as we all know, there's an austere, if sometimes unfathomable, beauty in descriptive cataloging.

[Major Changes in AACR2 and LCRIs Pertaining to Loose-leafs and Serials]

I recently received my copy of AACR2 Revision 2002, now issued in a handsome if somewhat ungainly loose-leaf binder. On December 1, 2002, the Library of Congress, OCLC, and RLIN are scheduled to implement these new revisions, the corresponding revised Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs), and most but not all of the related changes to the MARC 21 format.

I would like to discuss some of the major changes in AACR2 and the LCRIs, especially as they pertain to loose-leafs and serials. I will leave it to the estimable Ms. Goldner, our MARBI representative, to fill us in on the MARC 21 changes. I will then conclude with a brief discussion of where I think the new rules fall short.

New Taxonomy for Bibliographic Resources

AACR2 has introduced a new taxonomy for bibliographic resources into the Code: All materials are divided into the categories of "finite" and "continuing resources". The latter category is defined in the glossary (Appendix D) as "A bibliographic resource that is issued over time with no predetermined conclusion. Continuing resources include serials and ongoing integrating resources." "Integrating resource" is another category new to AACR, and is defined as "A bibliographic resource" that is added to or changed by means of updates that do not remain discrete and are integrated into the whole." This category includes updating loose-leafs, updating web sites, and updating databases. [Note: The latter is a somewhat problematic term, defined in (008/21 Serials "d" Updating databases) in update no. 2 (Oct. 2001) in the MARC format for bibliographic data as: "A collection of logically interrelated data stored together in one or more computerized files, usually created and managed by a database management system." (008/21 Serials "d" Updating databases)]. Each instance of an integrating resource, either as first published or after it has been updated, is now defined as an "iteration".

More Types of Bibliographic Resources Now Covered in AACR2

Up until the new revision, AACR2 had pretty much ignored unnumbered monographic series, as well as the entire group of resources represented by the new category "Integrating resources". For loose-leafs, the cataloger needed to refer to Adele Hallam's Cataloging rules for the Description of Loose-leaf Publications, 2nd ed. 1989 (Henceforth cited as "Hallam"). For remotely accessed Internet resources, some guidance was provided by Nancy B. Olson's Cataloging Internet Resources : A Manual and Practical Guide, 2nd ed., c1997. For unnumbered monographic series, the LCRIs provided some answers. Now all the above resources are treated in AACR2 Revision 2002 , most notably in its Chapter 12 (formerly named "Serials", now renamed "Continuing resources"). Chapter 12 also covers resources which exhibit the characteristics of serials, such as successive issues, numbering, and frequency, but whose duration is limited (e.g. newsletters of events); reprints of serials; and finite integrating resources. How can one distinguish between serials, monographs, and integrating resources?

At times it might be difficult to determine whether a bibliographic resource should be cataloged as a monograph, an integrating resource, or a serial. While AACR Revision 2002 does not provide much help in this regard, LCRI 1.0 (labeled as "LC practice") offers valuable guidelines.

Title Changes (Excluding Integrating Resources)

The new AACR2 rev. 2002 has introduced the concept of major versus minor title changes. Only major serial title changes require a new record. (21.2A). The corresponding RI (June 2002) adds that in determining whether or not the change is major or minor, the title on the later issue must be compared against the title proper recorded on the bibliographic record. Multiple minor changes do not equal a major change. The list of title changes not requiring a new record has been expanded considerably (21.2A2). I'll only mention a few of the most felicitous additions here.

1. Previously, the addition or deletion of the name of the issuing body anywhere except at the end of the title was considered grounds for a making a new record. Now "the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of the name of the same corporate body or the substitution of a variant form" is considered a minor change (21.2A2c). This is an excellent and long overdue addition to the list of conditions for not making a new record. Had this modification been added to the cataloging rules in a more timely manner, hundreds, or should I say thousands of hours of work by serials and cataloging staff could have been saved—to say nothing of the frustrations of bemused reference librarians and library patrons. Just think of such cases as: the Federal supplement changing its name to West's federal supplement. Everyone knew that this wasn't meant by the publisher as a meaningful title change, yet that's exactly how it needed to be treated, in order to have our records conform to the national standards. Of course, we can't lay the blame entirely on the rather "unfast" pace of change in our cataloging rules, as publishers have been putting, and will no doubt continue to put, vague, inconsistent, and contradictory information on the chief sources of their works, probably well into the next millennium.
2. A new serial record is no longer justified by: "The addition or deletion anywhere in the title of words that indicate the type of resource such as "magazine", "journal", or "newsletter", or their equivalent in other languages (21.2A2i). However, the change from one word to another is considered a major change, such as from "magazine" to "journal". (RI 21.2A June 2002).

The list is still relatively conservative. For example, words indicating a frequency of publication are not included in minor changes; so a hypothetical change such as "Chicago daily news" to "Chicago news" would be considered a major change. (see the above RI). Maybe this will change too with a future revision.

Grounds for optimism: The "in case of doubt provision" for title changes has changed from "Consider the title proper to have changed" to "Consider the change to be a minor change."

Title Changes and Other Descriptive Changes For Integrating Resources (21.2C1b, 21.3B1, etc.).

AACR2 Revision 2002 follows Hallam in its treatment of title changes and other changes for updating loose-leafs. In nearly all cases, a new record is not made, but the title proper is replaced with the new title proper, and the description is changed to reflect the latest information.

Changes in Rules for the Description of Updating Loose-leaf Resources:

Dates of Publication For all published bibliographic resources, AACR2 previously instructed us to supply a date of publication; if the exact dates were unknown, approximate dates of publication had to be supplied (AACR2 1998 rev. 1.4F7).

In the 2002 revision, if the earliest iteration is in hand, the beginning date should be put in the 260 field; if the resource has ceased and the latest iteration is available, then the closing date should be given in the publication field.

When the earliest iteration is not in hand, but the beginning date is known, it may be put in a note field. If the resource has ceased and the last iteration is not available, information about the ending date may also be given in a note (1.4F8 and 12.7B11.1). Unformatted MARC 21 "362" fields (first indicator "1") should be used for this type of note.

    Examples: 
        362 1    Began in 1984.
        362 1    Ceased in 1998.

Dates of Publication: AACR2 Revision 2002 and LC/PCC Option

In addition to the new provision to use a note when the earliest and/or latest iterations are not available, there is also an option to supply bracketed beginning/ending dates if they can be "readily ascertained" (1.4F8). LC/PCC practice stipulates not to investigate beyond the resource to find such a date (see information on the rule at CPSO Web at ), to be included in the last 2002 update to the LCRIs.

Physical Description Area: Extent of Resource

Previously, for loose-leafs, we were instructed to give 1 v. (loose-leaf), 2 v. (loose-leaf), etc., as appropriate. For updating loose-leafs, we are now to use "v. (loose-leaf)", until the resource is completed, after which we are to add the number of volumes (12.5B1).

Notes on Frequency of Updating

Statements indicating frequency of revision or frequent updating are not to be considered edition statements, but may now be given in the note area (MARC field "310"), as well as notes on changes in frequency or updating (MARC field "321"). (12.2B2 and 12.7B1). The word "updated" or "updates" should be included with the frequency word to make clear that the resource itself doesn't have that frequency. Examples: "Updated quarterly"; "Monthly updates." (RI 12.7B1 June 2002).

Standard Number and Terms of Availability Area

1. For updating loose-leafs, add the qualification (loose-leaf) to the ISBN (12.8E2).
2. Both ISSNs and ISBNs may now be used on records for updating loose-leafs (RI 12.8B1 June 2002)

What's Missing from AACR2 Revision 2002

The cataloging rules have made several steps forward, and the planned introduction of annual updates will help considerably. I'd like to mention what I find most lacking in the new rules:

1. Instructions on how to deal with monographic publications with pocket parts or regular cumulative supplements.
2. Multipart monographic publi-cations which include replacement volumes and often pocket parts, cumulative supplements, and advance sheets. You all know whereof I speak.

   For now, they are to be treated as finite resources. One could add MARC 21 "006" fields added to represent the seriality of the pocket parts, supplements, etc. A conscious decision was made not to deal with these publications in the 2002 revision of the rules; perhaps they will be "dealt with" in some future update.

3. When to Make a New Entry for Integrating Resources

I'm intentionally limiting the discussion to updating loose-leafs here. We are referred from the chapter on continuing resources (specifically 12.0A1c) to Chapter 21 for guidelines on when subsequent iterations of an integrating loose-leaf require a new description. However, in Chapter 21, we are told chiefly of a few cases when not to make a new entry (basically when there is a title change or a new main entry).

Similarly helpful is 12.2F1b: Change in edition information: integrating resources. Here we are instructed to change the edition area on the record to reflect the current iteration, if the change doesn't require a new description [no further information given], and to make a note if the change is significant.

The most specific guidance is given not in AACR2 rev. 2002, but in RI 21.3B: "Integrating resources: Updating loose-leafs":

Make a new entry only if there is a new base volume (i.e., an in toto replacement edition). Do not make a new entry for a gradual replacement edition (i.e., the author or publisher considers the publication to be a new edition and issues a replacement title page with a new edition statement but does not issue a new base volume)...

This RI helps, but does it really cover such creatures as recompiled editions issued in new binders, often by a new publisher, with each page bearing a date subsequent to the date of the last iteration before the recompilation. What if the release numbers revert to "1"? West Group as we know does this sort of thing frequently.

Some guidance is provided indirectly by the new RI on Conflict resolution (specifically RI 25.5B p.3 Aug. 2002): When an integrating resource becomes a serial or vice versa, without the resource changing its title, a uniform title needs to be used, to differentiate the integrating resource from the serial. From this it appears that change of format generally would justify a new record being made. MARC 21, Update no. 2, Oct. 2001, adds: "A new record is made [for electronic serials and integrating resources] only when there is a major change in edition or it is determined that there is a new work, and for title mergers and splits." (Serials field "008/34": Entry convention: "2", Integrated Entry"; see also AACR2 rev. 2002 12.7B8b-c). What constitutes a "new work" is not elaborated upon; it's unclear, at least to me, whether the term is being used in the same sense as it is in FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records). I suspect that "expression" would be better used here, but both "work" and "expression" have not yet been defined in AACR2. Complete harmonization of FRBR and AACR2 has only just begun.