On May 1-2 of this year, I attended the Program for Cooperative Cataloging's BIBCO Operations Committee Meeting at the Library of Congress. This meeting is held jointly with the CONSER Operations Committee Meeting. I will discuss below selected topics from the meeting, which I think may be of broad interest.

A. Cataloging of Integrating Resources

At the meeting, several PCC policy decisions were made concerning the cataloging of integrating resources (IR), most notably:

1. Full form of title and acronym or initialism in the chief source of information
Always record the acronym/initialism as other title information, and always give it as a title added entry. A new Library of Congress rule interpretation (LCRI) for 12.1E1 will be drafted to this effect, synchronizing the rules for serials and integrating resources. Currently, AACR only says to transcribe other title information for IRs if considered to be important.

2. Recording frequency and regularity of IRs in fixed fields:
Recording frequency is mandatory, but recording regularity will be optional.

3. Order of notes in IR records:
AACR order is to be preferred, but not mandatory. This compromise came about primarily because BIBCO catalogers follow AACR2 order for notes, but CONSER catalogers input notes in numerical order. Both groups will be updating records for integrating resources. To "lay the matter to rest", CPSO [Library of Congress' Cataloging Policy and Support Office] issued a draft RI on May 19 regarding note order in all formats: "Prefer the order of notes as specified in the rules unless there are mitigating circumstances that result in a different order..." (http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcri1_7b.html).

B. Integrating Resources Manual and Training Course

1. The second draft of an integrating resources manual has been developed by a PCC task group chaired by Alice Jacobs from the National Library of Medicine. The manual, slightly more than 100 pages, is in the process of final revision, and should be available in finished form by the ALA Annual Meeting in June, 2003, and subsequently posted on the PCC website.

2. The Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program (SCCTP) has recently completed the development of its Integrating Resources Cataloging Workshop. The workshop will be offered in 2 simultaneous sessions on June 20, 2003, as an ALA pre-conference in Toronto. Future workshops will follow in different locations.

C. Implementation of Bibliographic Level Code "i" and Record Distribution

1. Implementation by OCLC, RLIN, and LC
OCLC announced that they would not be able to implement code "i" for integrating resources until their online union catalog had completed a smooth transition to the Oracle platform—at least another two years. They are understandably reluctant to implement code "i" both on Connexion and on Passport, given the latter's imminent demise. While their decision makes a great deal of sense, it means that we will have at least two more years of "legacy records" to deal with when the implementation finally occurs.

RLIN implemented code "i" on December 13, 2002 for use in its MAP, MDF, REC, SCO, SER, and VIM files. For non-textual integrating resources, users are free to add non-PCC records to RLIN using for integrating resources using bib level "i" (RLIN BLT/02 "i"), or to continue to use BLT/02 "m". For textual integrating resources, the national policy will be to catalog textual integrating resources as monographs, until OCLC and LC can implement this new bibliographic level. (Further OCLC information: http://www.oclc.org/technicalbulletins/247/#1; RLG information on changes at URI: http://www.rlg.org/marcupdate02.html)

2. Record Distribution: Pre-code "i":
Until code "i" has been implemented by OCLC and LC, LC records for integrating resources will be distributed based upon type of record value (books, sound recordings, etc.).

3. Post Code "i" Implementation:
Once code "i" has been implemented, IR records will be distributed with records for serials. It has still not been decided whether non-LC PCC records for integrating resources will be distributed to both utilities along with LC records. If non-LC PCC records for IRs are to be distributed, a Library of Congress control number (010) will be assigned, and a (possibly different?) authentication code in the 042 field will be needed to identify the records.

4. Updating of IR Records:
Both BIBCO libraries with National OCLC enhance authorization and CONSER libraries will be authorized to create and replace PCC records for integrating resources with code "i".

Updating and possible distribution of the substantial number of "legacy records" created for ongoing integrating resources cataloged prior to the eventual implementation of code "i" remains problematic.

For more information, see a memorandum from the Library of Congress, dated April 23, 2003, posted to the PCC Web site (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/dstrbut_irs.pdf) and the Task Group on Implementation of Integrating Resources: Final Report (rev. 10/4/01) (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/tgintegrfinal.pdf).

D. Proposed Changes to AACR

Judy Kuhagen (CPSO), reported on major actions at the April 23-25, 2003 meeting of the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC). Those of most interest to law catalogers include:

1. Multipart monographs
Currently, AACR 21.2B2 and 21.3A2 instruct us to change the entry for a multipart monograph whenever it is determined that a title proper or responsible person/corporate body appearing on later parts of the bibliographic resource has become predominant. JSC has approved revision of the above rules to remove the concept of predominance, and to base the entry on the first or earliest available part. This is in accordance with current LC/PCC policy for both bibliographic records and series authority records as a whole. (Intended publication date for revisions: 2004 Update)

Addition of Change Rules?
LC's proposal to add rules for treating change in data elements of multipart items is still under discussion.

2. Specific characteristics of electronic resources
a. Area 3: "Type and Extent of Resource Area" (Marc 21 tag 256)
This area currently allows only "Electronic data", "Electronic program(s)", or a combination of the two. While it's required in cataloging done according to AACR2, it's not used by LC or in CONSER records, and the information given there is generally available elsewhere in more useful form in the records for Internet resources. The JSC has agreed to its removal from Chapter 9.

b. Provisional agreement to add option to record extent statement in area 5:
"Physical Description Area" (MARC 21 "300" field) for remote access electronic resources.

Area 5 is not being used currently for the description of Internet resources. If this proposal is implemented, records for ongoing Internet resources could use the appropriate standard material designation given in section .5B in most part I chapters of AACR2 (maps, scores, etc.).

c. Inclusion of URNs (Uniform Resource Names) in Chapter 9
The JSC will consider whether to combine area 8 ("Standard number and Terms of Availability Area") with other "important" numbers in AACR .7B19. An URN would be included as an example.

The W3C Web site defines a Uniform resource name as: "An URI [Uniform record identifier] that has an institutional commitment to persistence, availability, etc. Note that this sort of URI may also be a URL. See, for example, PURLs." For more information, see URI: http://www.w3.org/Addressing/

3. Incorporating FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) terminology into AACR

a. "Bibliographic resource" will be used throughout as the generic word for overall resource.

b. The FRBR terminology will be incorporated and used in a consistent manner throughout AACR, in stages. First, in areas 2, 3, 6, and maybe 4 of Part I, and in Part II, primarily Chapter 21 (which will also be undergoing a general revision).

c. Definitions of "work", "expression", and "manifestation" will be added to AACR's glossary, along with a revised definition of "item" (if deemed necessary).

4. Incorporating Authority Control into AACR
Based on an outline approved by JSC, LC will start drafting rules for a new section of AACR, possibly Part III? Chapters 23-26 dealing with cross references would be moved to this section.

E. What Monographic Catalogers Need to Know About AACR2 Revision 2002

A useful list of the most significant changes in AACR relating to monographic series and multipart items has been compiled for possible inclusion in the BIBCO Training Manual. It is available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/doc3a_03.pdf.

F. Proposed Projects for BIBCO Libraries: Participation in Electronic CIP and Dewey David Bucknam (CIP division), John P. Celli (chief, CIP division), and Dennis McGovern (Acting head of Dewey Decimal Division), gave an overview of the Cataloging in Publication Program. Currently, non-governmental BIBCO libraries do not participate in this program. The Library of Congress is encouraging BIBCO libraries to consider participating in the CIP program, especially Electronic CIP. A library might work in a specific subject area or subject areas, or instead deal with all publications of the local university and other press or presses. Turnaround for the cataloging for E-CIP participants would need to be very rapid, gen-erally within 48 hours. During the discussion which followed the presentations, it was asked what would be the incentive for libraries to take on this additional activity, aside from the not inconsiderable motive of assist-ing the Library of Congress in a worthwhile endeavor. Unfortunately, the logistics at this time would pre-clude participating libraries getting free copies of the items themselves. The thought at LC is that if other libraries could assist in taking on some of the responsibility of CIP cataloging, it would free resources there for other cataloging activities to which they are presently unable to give as much time as they would like. Participation by BIBCO libraries which use the Dewey classification would also be desirable, given the large number of libraries which use the system. There are however, few libraries in the BIBCO program which use this classification system (about six). Personally, while I think it would definitely be worthwhile to participate in the project (if it gets off the ground), it would be rather a difficult undertaking for most law libraries, given their small number of cataloging staff, to commit themselves to taking on another "rush" operation on a long term basis. General information on the E-CIP program is available at URI: http://cip.loc.gov/cip/ecip1.html.

G. "Parallel" Records in OCLC

With the exception of dual English and French records for the same bibliographic resource from the National Library of Canada, OCLC does not currently allow "duplicate" records in the same format for the same bibliographic resource. If a PCC library finds a record which doesn't have English as its cataloging language (a record with 040 subfield "b" with a foreign language code), it is supposed to delete the foreign language code and to change the description into English. As more and more libraries from non-English speaking countries are adding records to OCLC and joining PCC programs, the stipulation against "duplicate" records will become more and more of a concern. For instance, several Mexican libraries have recently started a NACO Mexican funnel and are also contributing bibliographic records to OCLC. It seems counterproductive at best for a cataloger in an English speaking country to change a perfectly good record which happens to have its notes and other descriptive elements in a foreign language from that language into English, rather than to add an English language record for that same resource. There was a great degree of support at the meeting for the PCC to urge OCLC to reconsider its policy. The prevailing opinion was that it would be better to consider these as "parallel" records, rather than "duplicate" records. Some preexisting or new linking field would be useful to link the records to each other. The OCLC representative at the meeting said that OCLC had been considering a change in policy in this area, and would discuss this matter at their upcoming Members' Council meeting.

H. FRBR and FRANAR

1. FRBR Presentation by Barbara Tillett
Barbara Tillett, chief of CPSO, was one of the original consultants who developed the conceptual model of FRBR for IFLA. She gave a lucid presentation on Thursday afternoon, with illustrations from her presentation in early April at an ALCTS Institute in San Jose on Metadata and AACR. She anticipates that FRBR terminology may be completely integrated into our cataloging code (renamed AACR3?) by about 2006.). Her ALCTS presentation is available at URI: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/doc4_frbr.pdf.

2. CONSER FRBR Task Force on Continuing Resources
FRBR was also discussed during the Friday afternoon joint BIBCO/CONSER meeting, unfortunately without the presence of Barbara Tillett.

Everett Allgood, New York University, chair of the Task Force, gave a summary of the activities of various groups working with FRBR. The general difficulties of applying FRBR as it currently exists to continuing resources, especially serials, were discussed. As Everett noted, most of the examples in FRBR are for music or literary resources, and few examples are given for serials and integrating resources. Areas of particular difficulty for incorporating serials into the FRBR construct:

a. Current use of manifestation-level qualifiers in uniform titles.
FRBR favors construction of uniform titles at the expression level. In general, uniform titles, particularly for serials, have been used to create citations at the manifestation level, rather than the expression level. For example: the standard material designation (SMD) "Online" is often used as a qualifier in uniform titles, to distinguish the online manifestation of a bibliographic resource from its print manifestation. If FRBR is to be accepted as a proper framework for AACR and other cataloging codes, then this practice will need to be revisited.

b. Serial title change? New work or new expression?
There was much discussion at the meeting on the difficulty of deciding when a serial title change represents a new "expression", and when it represents a new work. Which attributes belong to a work, which to an expression?

It seems apparent that FRBR needs to be fine tuned, to account more thoroughly for seriality. I gave a brief description in my last column on the body which is responsible for FRBR revisions, the IFLA Working Group on FRBR. (Text of FRBR is available online at URI: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm)

3. IFLA Working Group on FRANAR (Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records)
Established in April 1999, with Glenn Patton of OCLC as its chair, this group has three distinct charges:

1. To define the functional requirements of authority records, continuing the work initiated by FRBR.

2. To study the feasibility and use of an International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN).

3. To act as the official IFLA liaison to, and cooperate with other interested parties concerning authority files. This information is derived from Glenn's article, "FRANAR: A Conceptual Model for Authority Files," which details the work of the group through December 2002. (http://www.unifi.it/universita/biblioteche/ac/relazioni/patton_eng.pdf).

Everett's report, which also discusses FRANAR, is available online at http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/FRBR.pdf

The complete BIBCO OpCo meeting agenda may be found at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/opcoagenda03.html.

Postscript: The official summary of the BIBCO Operations Committee meeting is now available at the BIBCO Web site (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/opco03.html).