|DESCRIPTION & ENTRY|
George A. Prager
New York University
I would like to begin by updating my earlier discussion of changes to AACR2 (TSLL v.28, no. 1/2, p. 11-14), especially with regard to integrating resources. I will follow this with some general observations on the impact of the new rules, talk about upcoming changes or possible changes in the cataloging rules, and end with a snapshot of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) developments at the international level.
When to Make a New Entry for Integrating Resources
I would like to clarify what I wrote in the last issue of TSLL on this topic. Rule 12.2F1b instructs us to change the edition area on the record to reflect the current iteration, if the change doesn't require a new description, but no guidelines are given as to what changes in an edition statement do require a new description. According to information at the JSC Web site summarizing the outcome of their meeting in York, England, on Sept. 9-11, 2002, the revised rules at one time were going to include an "Appendix of Major Changes." This information will instead be included in a stand-alone document being drafted by an ALA task force (Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules Web site, viewed Feb. 17, 2003: URI: http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/0209out.html).
Shortly after submitting my article for the December 2002 issue of TSLL, I exchanged emails with Judy Kuhagen at the Library of Congress. She informed me that when it was decided not to include the Appendix of Major Changes in AACR2 Rev. 2002, RI 21.3B "Integrating resources: Updating loose-leafs" was drafted to clarify the conditions under which a new bibliographic description was necessary.
From the RI: "If the edition statement changes, make a new entry ... only if there is a new base volume (i.e, an in toto replacement edition..."
She agreed that it might be helpful if RI 21.3B were revised to include some of the more common problematic situations faced, such as when loose-leaf publishers provide "physical" but not "intellectual" in toto replacement "editions." It is to be hoped that AACR2 will be revised in the not-too-distant future to include information needed about major and minor changes for this area, among others.
Impact of AACR Rev. 2002
It's been about two and a half months since AACR Rev. 2002 has been in effect, but I don't find that the changes to the rules have necessitated too many changes in our records. The major change has been for multipart items and updating loose-leafs which are not yet complete. Rule 1.5B5 now instructs us to give the specific material designation alone (for instance: "v.", not "5 v; for incomplete updating loose-leafs (Rule 12.5B1), we use "v. (loose-leaf)." Some law libraries I'm sure were doing this already.
Fields which have been restricted to serials may now be used in large part for integrating resources, such as field 310 (frequency or frequency of updating). I'm finding that most of the time, this information is not available for the resources we are cataloging. The frequency of updating for loose-leafs and legal web sites is often irregular, or if regular, is known only to the publisher. For these integrating resources, we are now adding MARC21 field 006 to express seriality, as we still need to catalog these items as bibliographic level "m" (monographs), until the new bibliographic level "i" is implemented by LC, OCLC, and RLIN, hopefully this summer. Adding the 006 fields has become almost automatic for our cataloging staff. I'd be most interested in hearing from any of you as to any challenges, expected or otherwise, you or your staff have been experiencing with implementing the new rules. I think the real challenges are ahead of us, when the new bibliographic level gets implemented, for those of us who are concerned with correct coding of new resources in both the utilities and in our local catalogs.
Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules Web Site
This Web site, is a good source to learn about what types of changes are being considered for the annual revisions of AACR2. Among the ones which piqued my interest: Incorporating FRBR [Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records] into AACR, revising the "Rule of three" and other changes to Chapter 21, incorporating authority records into AACR, adding further guidance on multipart items, and further expansion to categories in RI 21.2A2 (minor changes in title proper).
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
As most of you are doubtless aware, FRBR is one of the hottest subjects, both nationally and internationally, in the cataloguing community. The current text was approved by the Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Cataloguing in 1997 and published by K.G. Saur in 1998. It's already been translated into several languages, and is beginning to be incorporated into library school curricula in several European countries (Though I don't know about the U.S.). There is an English version online at the IFLA site: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm. Online catalogs are attempting to incorporate some of its guidelines into their structure, with VTLS most notably having the most success so far.
The IFLA Cataloguing Section's Working Group on FRBR had its first two meetings in August 2002. Among its rather formidable list of charges: To assist with proposals for incorporating FRBR terminology and concepts into an international cataloguing code, to assist in enhancements of its model, to recommend improvements to existing OPACS, to develop training tools and maintain a bibliography on FRBR, and to generally promote FRBR. Anyone who is interested in following and assisting in the development of FRBR may subscribe to the listserv by sending a subscription request to