Orphans Adopted Eighty-Nine Years after Conception, or, Cataloging Updating Loose-Leaf Publications

This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 18 December 2014, At: 03:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Serials Librarian: From thePrinted Page to the Digital AgePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wser20

Orphans Adopted Eighty-NineYears after Conception, or,Cataloging Updating Loose-LeafPublicationsCarol Morgan Collins aa University of Tennessee, College of Law Library ,1505 West Cumberland Ave, Knoxville, TN, 37996Published online: 12 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Carol Morgan Collins (2008) Orphans Adopted Eighty-NineYears after Conception, or, Cataloging Updating Loose-Leaf Publications, TheSerials Librarian: From the Printed Page to the Digital Age, 55:4, 598-614, DOI:10.1080/03615260802380429

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03615260802380429

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wser20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03615260802380429

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03615260802380429

primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Serials Librarian, Vol. 55(4) 2008Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.

598 doi:10.1080/03615260802380429

WSER0361-526X1541-1095The Serials Librarian, Vol. 55, No. 4, September 2008: pp. 1–26The Serials Librarian

Orphans Adopted Eighty-Nine Years after Conception, or, Cataloging Updating

Loose-Leaf PublicationsCarol Morgan CollinsTHE SERIALS LIBRARIAN Carol Morgan Collins

ABSTRACT. Until the 2002 revision to AACR2 was adopted, catalogingrules for updating loose-leaf publications were orphans—they wereexcluded from previous Anglo–American rule compilations. To offer guid-ance to catalogers, over the years the Library of Congress issued a series ofrule interpretations and supplemental resources outlining best practices andrules for cataloging loose-leafs. This article chronicles the publication, orlack of practical publication, of cataloging rules for updating loose-leafsand the impact on libraries. Also included is a review of the various organi-zations instrumental in garnering support for the creation and acceptance ofa new paradigm and standards and concepts that would ensure the inclu-sion of cataloging rules for updating resources. Finally, the impacts on

Carol Morgan Collins is Assistant Professor and Catalog Librarian at theUniversity of Tennessee, College of Law Library, 1505 West Cumberland Ave.,Knoxville, TN 37996. (E-mail: [email protected]). She holds an M.S. in Infor-mation Science from the University of Tennessee.

I wish to acknowledge my law library colleagues who were willing to reviewand comment on this article. In addition, I wish to acknowledge the support Ihave received from the cataloging staff and their student assistants.

I would especially like to recognize and express gratitude for an article writtenin 1989 by Jim Cole, Professor at Iowa State University. In “Caught in a Bind:The Cataloging of Looseleaf Publications,” The Serials Librarian 16, no. 1/2(1989), Cole presents a well-known paradox. He cites references supportingserial, as well as monographic cataloging of loose-leaf publications. He con-cludes by saying that loose-leafs have the characteristics of both serials andmonographs. His recommendation is to catalog these materials as monographs inthe MARC serials format. His article was forward thinking and is the study thatlaunched this effort to update his discussion from that time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Carol Morgan Collins 599

libraries and cooperative organizations resulting from the implementationof the new rules are examined.

KEYWORDS. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, updating loose-leafpublications, integrating resources, cataloging

Prior to 2002, updating loose-leaf publications did not fit into theserial/monograph dichotomy;1 therefore, detailed rules for catalogingthese resources were excluded from the second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and its predecessors. To fill thevoid, the Library of Congress (LC) issued Cataloging Rules for theDescription of Looseleaf Publications2 in 1986 as a supplement for catalog-ing “monographic publications that are in looseleaf format for updating.”3

LC required that updating loose-leaf publications not meeting the defini-tion of a serial be cataloged as monographs.4 Ironically, the rules for cata-loging loose-leaf publications were eventually incorporated into the 2002revision of AACR2 (AACR2 Rev.), Chapter 12, “Continuing Resources,”which had previously been entitled “Serials.” In the 1980s Jim Cole sug-gested that updating loose-leafs be cataloged as monographs, but in theMARC format for serials.5 This insightful speculation presaged majorrevisions that lay ahead.

UPDATING LOOSE-LEAFS: WHAT ARE THEY?

According to AACR2 Rev., an “updating loose-leaf” is an integratingresource6 that consists of one or more base volumes updated by separatepages that are inserted, removed, and/or substituted.7 These publicationsare sometimes referred to as interpaginated loose-leafs. The frequency ofupdates varies from title to title and depends on the volatility of the sub-ject matter.8 Not all loose-leaf publications are updating. Monographs andserials can both be issued in a loose-leaf format. If updates are issued andremain discrete, the publication is either a monograph or a serial. Confer-ence proceedings, course materials, and training manuals are examples ofmonographs that may be issued in loose-leaf format. A serial issued in aloose-leaf format may contain successive issues that remain discrete.Most often the issues will bear some type of sequential numbering. Theissues can either be filed successively in the binder or integrated until thenext binder is issued.9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

600 THE SERIALS LIBRARIAN

The first loose-leafs, appearing in the early 1900s, provided informa-tion on the latest legislative developments and rapidly changing laws.10

These publications were favored by professionals who depended onaccess to time-sensitive information, and professionals continue to rely onthis format for up-to-date facts. Most of today’s loose-leafs are legaltitles; however, resources in this format are also prevalent in the fields ofmedicine, agriculture, and electronics.11 Although the number of legalloose-leafs made a substantial increase of 197% (1,380 titles in 1981 and4,100 titles in 1992) between 1981 and 1992, a slight decrease of 17%(4,100 titles in 1992 and 3,400 titles in 2008) occurred from 1992 until2008.12 The recent decrease in the number of print loose-leafs is attributedto a proliferation of titles available via the Internet. Internet versions areattractive to users because electronic editions eliminate the need fortedious filing, can be updated continuously, and are generally easy touse.13 Publishers of print-based resources do not regard Web-based prod-ucts as competitors, but rather view these resources as another deliverymethod.14

WHERE ARE THE RULES? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PRACTICES AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCES

PRIOR TO 2002

In 1908, the American Library Association and the (British) LibraryAssociation published Cataloging Rules: Author and Title Entries in twoeditions. Since that time, a number of cataloging codes have evolved;however, the rules for cataloging loose-leaf publications in the succeedingcodes remained obscure until the 2002 revision of AACR2. The variouscodes, among them ALA, AACR1, and AACR2, provided the catalogeralmost no detail on the treatment of loose-leaf publications.15 In “Catalog-ing Loose-Leaf Publications,” Byron Cooper looks to the second editionof Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) for a definition and findsone brief statement, “all loose-leaf publications that are designed toreceive additions.”16 The aberration was also noted in 1989 and 1995.17

For cataloging these publications, catalogers looked to other resources.In 1983 and 1986, the Library of Congress published two issues of

Cataloging Service Bulletin that stated, “Do not catalog as a serial a pub-lication that is loose-leaf for updating, nor any of its updates, revisions,and supplements, although the latter are frequently issued in packages carry-ing a numeric or chronological designation suggestive of serial publication.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


A similar statement was made in 1990.18 Still, little cataloging informa-tion was available for this format. Hence, the bibliographic records asso-ciated with them were inconsistent, and the lack of standardization wasevident.19 In 1986, LC determined that an additional set of rules wasneeded.20 To fill the void, Adele Hallam’s Cataloging Rules for theDescription of Looseleaf Publications: With Special Emphasis on LegalMaterials was published as a manual to supplement AACR2.

Finally, the cataloging community had received some direction on thetreatment of loose-leaf publications, even though the new rules advocatedmonographic, rather than serial, treatment of updating loose-leaf publica-tions. Updating loose-leaf publications were cataloged as monographs“because the bibliographic description applied to loose-leaf publicationsfollows so closely that of monographs. . . .”21 The Library of Congressdetermined that very few loose-leaf publications were actually serials andthat they should be cataloged as monographs unless they exhibited biblio-graphic conditions typical of serials. To make that determination, the cat-aloger was referred to Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI)12.0A, “Monograph vs. Serial Treatment of Publications.” Loose-leafpublications were cataloged as serials only if “meeting the definition of aserial” or if the publications were “issued periodically (usually annuallyor biennially) and carry corresponding designations.”22 Cataloging updatingloose-leaf publications as serials was rejected because:

• Serials cataloging was based on the first issue. This is not practical ina situation where earlier “issues” change each time new material isadded or outdated material removed;

• Serials cataloging required successive entry rules. This practice doesnot work for updating loose-leafs because revised title pages areadded and updated contents are integrated into an existing publica-tion without creating a new bibliographic resource;

• Serials required a numeric or chronological designation. Generally,only the updates of a loose-leaf publication bear numerical designa-tion. These parts cannot be used separately and have significanceonly after being integrated into the original resource.23

Despite LC’s publications and practices, most large university and lawlibraries treated loose-leaf publications as serials rather than mono-graphs.24 For practical reasons librarians argued that LC’s policy was noteffective and did not reflect reality in managing loose-leaf collections.Tracking receipt and claiming missing issues were automated with the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


emergence of automated check-in records. Treating loose-leaf publicationsas serials facilitated their management through the use of a computerizedserials control system.25 In 1982, Cooper asserted that the loose-leaf pub-lication was “in fact nothing more than a highly developed form of serialthat allows augmentation by subject rather than by simple chronologicalsequence.”26

However, the University of Arizona Library, which had originally cat-aloged updating loose-leafs as serials, decided to comply with LC’s policyby converting these titles in accordance with the new rules. This decisionimpacted several functional areas, in addition to budgeting, staffing, andrecordkeeping. In this library, serials and monographs were acquired,budgeted, cataloged, and maintained by separate departments. The SerialsDepartment had originally performed these functions for updating publi-cations. Once a determination had been made that a title required mono-graphic treatment, the title was transferred to the Cataloging Departmentfor recataloging. Also, the purchasing and budgeting for loose-leafs meetingthe criteria were transferred to the monographic Acquisitions Department,and funds were reallocated.27

In 1989, Jim Cole concluded that loose-leaf publications contain bothserial and monographic characteristics, and he contended that these mate-rials could be cataloged as monographs using the MARC format for seri-als.28 Cole’s innovative postulation set the stage for changes that wouldtake place in the next decade. Interestingly enough, these changes ema-nated from the Cooperative Online Serials Program (CONSER), an orga-nization steeped in the promulgation of serials cataloging standards andrules.29

In the 1990s the thrust for change grew out of the increasing number ofelectronic resources exhibiting characteristics similar to those of updatingloose-leafs. Like loose-leafs, these resources fit the definition of neitherserial nor monograph and were continuously being updated.30 Discontentcontinued to grow within the cataloging community due to the lack ofguidance in describing these resources.31

Crystal Graham gave voice to this dissatisfaction when she prepared andpresented, at the request of the CONSER Policy Committee, “What’sWrong with AACR2: A Serials Perspective” at the AACR2000 Preconfer-ence that was held in conjunction with the American Library Association’sannual conference in 1995.32 This report outlined the basic problems foundin AACR2 with regard to cataloging serials and serial-like materials; theseincluded the inherent difficulties that arose from cataloging resources in theserials “family” using rules intended for books. She described loose-leaf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


publications as “monographs with a publication pattern. . . . The catalogingrules should help us with such critical decisions, but AACR2 is silent. Itsfailure to provide instructions for such common publication types as loose-leaf publications, databases, and other cumulations is one of the majorflaws of AACR2.”33 Graham’s paper and follow-up work resulted in severalissues to be addressed at the then upcoming international conference of cat-aloging experts. The conference, planned by the Joint Steering Committeefor Revision of AACR (JSC), was initiated to discuss fundamental revisionsto the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules.34

In preparation for the upcoming conference, CONSER established theTask Force on AACR Review. Spearheaded by Jean Hirons (who laterbecame CONSER Coordinator in 1997),35 this group immediately set towork preparing for the upcoming JSC conference. The mission of the taskforce was to shape “the future of serials cataloging and CONSER’s role inthe cataloging community.”36

Subsequently, Graham and Hirons presented “Issues Related toSeriality”37 at the International Conference on the Principles and FutureDevelopment of AACR in 1997.38 Graham stated that “Our rules and defi-nitions were crafted in a time of bibliographic stability and do not accom-modate changing formats and new forms of publications.”39 She echoedvoices from the past as she noted the general absence of the term loose-leaf from AACR2 and expressed the need for serial treatment of loose-leafsfor control purposes.40 She reviewed the current state of cataloging thesepublications and offered definitions, concepts, and solutions. One vitalconcept was that publications had, in addition to the intellectual contentand the physical carrier, a publication status—either “static (i.e., completeas issued) or ongoing (not complete as issued).”41 This idea illuminatedthe concept that resources had a publication pattern, and this thought hadbeen ignored by AACR2. Publication status referred to the “susceptibilityof content to change over time, both extensively, by the supplementing ofcontent through additional carriers, and intensively, through the alterationof content within the existing carrier.”42 Further, Hirons and Graham pre-dicted that publication status would gain importance in the catalogingequation as the electronic realm became more prevalent.43

The authors concluded that seriality, or the ongoing dimension of a work,was a “fundamental dimension of the work”44 and must be recognized in thecataloging code. An essential element in achieving this goal was identifyinga resource as a whole, as opposed to describing “one item ‘frozen in time.’”45

Inspired by the presentation, the JSC began to review long-needed revi-sions to the rules for cataloging serials as suggested by “Issues Related to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Seriality.” Following the conference, the JSC charged Hirons with the taskof preparing rule revision proposals for AACR2 to meet the standards out-lined in the presentation.46

Hirons recognized that revising AACR2 would impact other standardsand that the success of the proposals hinged on agreements with variousstakeholders. Hence, instead of rule revisions, she proposed a report con-taining specific recommendations. The JSC agreed, and Hirons began thetask at hand. Four groups were organized to work on the proposed docu-ment, entitled Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Report to theJoint Steering Committee on the Revision of AACR2. These groupsworked on revising the definition of a serial, surveying the use of succes-sive and latest entry title rules, reviewing the cataloging rules for serialsand electronic journals, and improving the rule for title changes.47 Tofacilitate this integration, each recommendation in the report included animpact statement for AACR2, ISBD(S), ISSN, and MARC 21.48

The report consisted of three major sections—A. Introduction;B. Seriality; and C. Recommendations and Future Considerations—andextensive appendices. After giving background information, acknowl-edgments, goals, and other pertinent information in the introduction,Hirons described in detail the concept of seriality and how serialityrelated to bibliographic resources, AACR2, and MARC 21. In a sectiontitled “Description” she suggested adding Hallam’s rules for catalogingloose-leaf publications as a start, and supplementing these rules whereappropriate.49

To ensure wide distribution before the JSC meeting that year, thereport was posted to the JSC website, and discussions were held withCONSER and BIBCO participants and at the North American SerialsInterest Group conference, the ALA annual conference, the InternationalFederation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) meeting, andthe annual meeting of the American Association of Law Libraries. Inaddition, a task force of the American Library Association’s Committeeon Cataloging and Classification: Description and Access (CC:DA)reviewed the report for an official response from CC:DA.50

At the October 1999 meeting, the JSC considered the recommenda-tions from Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Report and madesome modifications.51 Most of the recommendations were endorsed, andthe JSC requested that Hirons prepare the rule revisions based on themodified report. Hirons, assisted by the CONSER AACR Review TaskForce, began preparing Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: RuleRevision Proposals.52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Upon completion, the Rule Revision Proposals were submitted to theJSC through CC:DA.53 The JSC reviewed the proposals and the constituentresponses at meetings held in September 2000, April 2001, and October2001.54

THE RESULT: AACR2 REV., CHAPTER 12

AACR2, Chapter 12, “Serials,” was renamed “Continuing Resources”in AACR2 Rev. This is now the primary chapter used in cataloging bothserials and integrating resources, that is, updating loose-leafs, updatingwebsites, and databases. The rules in Chapter 12 are subdivided, with notall rules or sections of rules applying to all materials. For example, some-times the rules are subdivided between serials and integrating resources,and sometimes between print and electronic resources.

As the new title of Chapter 12 might indicate, the definition of a serialhas been revised somewhat, with it now hinging on the concept of continuingresource. A continuing resource is defined in AACR2 Rev. as “a biblio-graphic resource that is issued over time with no predetermined conclusion.Continuing resources include serials and ongoing integrating resources.”55

A continuing resource may be contrasted with a finite resource, which iseither complete or intended to be completed in one or more parts—that is, aresource with a predetermined conclusion.56 The lack of a predeterminedend is a hallmark of a serial as opposed to a multipart item published over aperiod of time (such as an encyclopedia). It is also the primary unifying ele-ment for serials and ongoing integrating resources, and hence they are dealtwith in the same chapter of the code. Serials and integrating resources are,however, distinguished from each other by their forms of issuance. Succes-sive issues of a serial are discrete units that maintain their identity; updatesto an integrating resource, on the other hand, are integrated into the whole,which maintains its own identity while the updates upon integration losetheirs. Because of these differing forms of issuance, serials and integratingresources are accorded distinct treatment in Chapter 12.57

In describing integrating resources, many rules included in the AACR2Rev. are based on Hallam’s publication, as was suggested in RevisingAACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Report. These include:

• Basing the description on the latest iteration• Using integrating entry, similar to latest entry, which requires that

existing bibliographic records be updated when there are changes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


in title, statement of responsibility, place of publication, or nameof publisher

• Noting the frequency of updates• Including a “Description based on” note to indicate the currency of

information at the time the record was created or updated• Including history notes for changes in title, statement of responsibility,

publisher, and so on, that occurred over time

COOPERATION: AACR2, BIBCO, CONSER, MARC, AND OCLC

As noted by Hirons, MARC 21 and AACR2 are intertwined, and inmaking changes, the relationship between the cataloging rules andMARC format had to be explored.58 A monumental challenge for theAACR Review Group was to orchestrate changes in the MARC format toaccommodate proposed cataloging revisions. Suggested changes in theMARC leader had implications not only for MARC, but for library sys-tems and bibliographic utilities as well. The changes impacted retrievaland display, technical processing, and collection management.59 Hironsand the CONSER AACR Review Group issued two discussion papers forthe Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information committee (MARBI)on the topic of seriality and MARC 21. The first, Discussion Paper 114,was prepared in 1999; the other, Discussion Paper 119, in 2000.60 Inresponse to the CONSER papers, on May 7, 2001, MARBI issued Pro-posal No. 2001-05, “Changes in MARC 21 to Accommodate Seriality”and Proposal No. 2001-04, “Making Field 260 Repeatable in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format.”61

In these proposals, the concepts of continuing resource and integratingresource were accepted along with a revised definition of a serial. In addi-tion, changes were made to the following:

• Bibliographic Level (Leader/07)—code “i” was added to representintegrating resources

• Frequency (008/18)—code “k” was added to denote that updateswere made more frequently than daily

• Type of Serial (renamed Type of Continuing Resource; 008/21)—three codes, “l,” “d,” and “w,” were added to reflect updating loose-leaf, database, and updating website, respectively

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


• Entry Convention (008/34)—a new code “2” was added for integrat-ing entry

• Publication, Distribution, etc. (260 field)—the field itself was maderepeatable so that the latest and earliest publisher information wouldbe available as changes occurred in a publication over time

Among the MARC codes introduced, the creation of a new bibliographiclevel (leader/ 07) code for integrating resources proved the most signifi-cant. Finally, the uniqueness of updating publications, or integratingresources, had been embraced. These resources now had specific catalog-ing rules, and they “deserved their own category in MARC 21.”62 Thisone-byte code would allow users to distinguish integrating resourcesfrom monographs and serials. This distinction was important in utilizingan integrated library system to properly maintain, display, and retrievematerials.63

Although approval for the creation of the MARC codes was reachedrather expeditiously, the actual implementation was delayed. The impactof implementing these codes had far-reaching implications for local sys-tems, cooperative cataloging programs, and bibliographic utilities. In fact,some constituents conceived that bibliographic level “i” might never beimplemented.64

OCLC began planning and making system changes for the implemen-tation of the new MARC fields and codes once the MARC and AACR2revisions were complete.65 Moreover, approximately 700,000 biblio-graphic records had to be found and converted to conform to the new pol-icy.66 In 2002 many of the fixed and variable fields approved by MARBIwere implemented by OCLC. In addition to data elements mentioned ear-lier, some of the prominent fields redefined for use in the cataloging ofintegrating resources included:67

• 247—Former Title• 310—Current Publication Frequency• 321—Former Publication Frequency• 362—Dates of Publication and/or Sequential Designation

MARBI had determined that the 260 field should be repeatable. However,as of yet, this change has not been implemented by OCLC. According toDavid Adams of the Customer Support Department at OCLC, the imple-mentation of the repeatable 260 field is on hold until several issues are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


resolved. The problems involved with making this change include impactson indexing, displaying, record matching, and card printing. In his words,“The issue of the repeatable 260 field is much larger and considerablymore complex than it first appears to be.”68

In December 2002, an interim plan was put into place until such timethat the bibliographic level code “i” could be fully implemented withinthe OCLC system. The temporary solution involved coding the biblio-graphic level with an “m” (monograph) and adding a serial 006 field. The006 field would be used for the future conversion of integrating resourcerecords.69 Bibliographic level code “i” became functional in the OCLCsystem in June 2006.70 To accommodate the inclusion of integratingresources, the Serials work form was renamed Continuing Resources; it isnow used to create records for both textual serials and textual integratingresources. With these enhancements, searches on the OCLC system cannow be limited to retrieve serials, integrating resources, or the broadercategory of continuing resources.71

Cooperative cataloging programs were also greatly affected. To pre-pare for the changes ahead, in 2001, the Library of Congress’s Programfor Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) created a Task Group on Implementa-tion of Integrating Resources. The group’s members consisted of catalogersand representatives from BIBCO, CONSER, and the utilities.72 Theassignments were to determine the full impact that putting these rules intopractice would have on distributing records, as well as on training, docu-mentation, and record maintenance.73

The PCC decided that both BIBCO and CONSER libraries would cre-ate and authenticate integrating resources records. They began authenti-cating integrating resources records on the OCLC system in June 2007.“These records will be distributed in a single ‘continuing resources’ file toCDS MARC Distribution Service (MDS) subscribers.”74

Record distribution by the Library of Congress would need re-evalua-tion. CONSER members create and maintain serial records on the OCLCsystem. These records are then distributed to recipients. BIBCO recordsadded to OCLC are not distributed by the Library of Congress.75 Oneissue to be addressed is whether records with code “i” will be distributedalone or with those having code “s.” Likewise, changing records previ-ously coded as “m” to “i” would be problematic, because a delete wouldfirst have to be issued.76 The Library of Congress has stated, “Value ‘i’will be implemented in early 2008; Bibliographic Level value ‘m’ contin-ues to be used in the interim in conjunction with the 006 field to code thetype of integrating resource.”77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


BIBCO and CONSER participants created a cataloging manual that isused by both groups. This instructive manual is available on the Web, andrefers to both AACR2 Rev. and the Library of Congress Rule Interpreta-tions.78 Also, they developed training materials and workshops for cata-logers. In order to maximize resources and offer the sessions to a wideaudience, the training was presented through the Serials CooperativeCataloging Training Program (SCCTP). Although developed for catalogingelectronic integrating resources, a session was included for the catalogingof loose-leaf publications.79

At the local level, the earlier challenges faced by the University ofArizona in converting updating loose-leafs from serials to monographsrepresent some of the same circumstances faced today by libraries imple-menting the new bibliographic level “i.” Libraries that divide workflows,purchases, and budgets between serials and monographs are deciding whowill catalog integrating resources. Training issues are also at the forefrontof questions being asked. Serials catalogers are experienced in applyingChapter 12 of AACR2; but most monograph catalogers are not accus-tomed to these rules.80 However, training is now available through theSCCTP workshops, and cataloging support is provided by the onlinemanual created by BIBCO and CONSER.

CONCLUSION

From the inception of loose-leafs in 1913 until 2002, AACR catalog-ing rules ignored the problem of cataloging loose-leaf publications. Inthe 1980s the potential for these materials to be cataloged as mono-graphs using the MARC format for serials was voiced.81 In a sense, thishas occurred with an additional element. Serials and updating loose-leafpublications, that is, integrating resources, are now cataloged from thesame work form. The rules for both are included in the same chapterwith exceptions for integrating resources noted. Interestingly, the rulesincorporated into AACR2 Rev. for cataloging integrating resources areessentially the same as those found in Cataloging Rules for the Descrip-tion of Looseleaf Publications, in which the Library of Congress cata-loged updating publications as monographs. Most importantly, theseresources can be identified through the exclusive use of a one-bytecode, “i.” At last, AACR has recognized the uniqueness of the once-orphaned loose-leaf publication and has prescribed appropriate catalogingrules.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Jean Hirons and Crystal Graham, “Issues Related to Seriality,” in Principles andFuture of AACR, Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles andFuture Development of AACR, edited by Jean Weihs (Chicago: American Library Associ-ation, 1998), 186. Also available from Library and Archives Canada’s Web site at: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/300/jsc_aacr/issues/r-serial.pdf

2. Adele Hallam, Cataloging Rules for the Description of Looseleaf Publications:With Special Emphasis on Legal Materials (Washington, D.C.: Office for DescriptiveCataloging Policy, Library of Congress, 1986).

3. Cataloging Service Bulletin, no. 36 (Spring 1987): 40.4. Adele Hallam, Cataloging Rules for the Description of Looseleaf Publications:

With Special Emphasis on Legal Materials, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Office forDescriptive Cataloging Policy, Library of Congress, 1989), 3. Also available from Cataloger’sReference Shelf at: http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/lslf0071.htm

5. Jim E. Cole, “Caught in a Bind: The Cataloging of Looseleaf Publications,” SerialsLibrarian 16, no. 1/2 (1989): 81.

6. Terminology will be covered later in the article.7. Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, Anglo-American Cataloguing

Rules, 2nd ed., 2002 rev. (Chicago: American Library Association, 2002), Appendix D-9.Also available by subscription from Cataloger’s Desktop at: http://desktop.loc.gov/

8. Pamela Bluh, “Legal Looseleafs: No Grounds for Intimidation!” Serials Review15, no. 3 (1989): 64.

9. Program for Cooperative Cataloging, Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual:Appendix A to the BIBCO Participants Manual and Module 35 of the CONSER CatalogingManual, 2008 rev. (Washington, D.C.: Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2003), 10.Available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/irman.pdf and available by subscriptionfrom Cataloger’s Desktop at http://desktop.loc.gov/

10. Peyton R. Neal, Jr., “Loose-Leaf Reporting Services,” Law Library Journal 62(1969): 153–154.

11. Cole, “Caught in a Bind,” 75.12. Arlene L. Eis, comp. and ed., Legal Looseleafs in Print 1992 (Teaneck, NJ: Infos-

ources Publishing, 1992), 1; Arlene L. Eis, comp. and ed., Legal Looseleafs in Print 2008(Teaneck, NJ: Infosources Publishing, 2008), 1.

13. Kendall F. Svengalis, Legal Information Buyer’s Guide and Reference Manual(N. Stonington, CT: Rhode Island Law Press, 2006), 96.

14. Michael Herson, “Is This the End of Looseleaf?” Information World Review, no.166 (February 1, 2001): 21. Also available from Information World Review’s Web site at:http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2083159/looseleaf

15. Cole, “Caught in a Bind,” 76.16. American Library Association et al., Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed.

(Chicago: American Library Association, 1978), 65. Quoted in Byron Cooper, “CatalogingLoose-Leaf Publications,” Library Resources & Technical Services 26, no. 4 (1982): 371.

17. Cole, “Caught in a Bind,” 76; Crystal Graham, “What’s Wrong with AACR2: ASerials Perspective” in The Future of the Descriptive Cataloging Rules: Papers from the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


ALCTS Preconference, AACR2000, American Library Association Annual Conference,Chicago, June 22, 1995, edited by Brian E. C. Schottlaender (Chicago: American LibraryAssociation, 1998), 73.

18. Cataloging Service Bulletin, no. 20 (Spring 1983): 10; Cataloging Service Bulletin,no. 32 (Spring 1986): 19; and Cataloging Service Bulletin, no. 50 (Fall 1990): 30.

19. Karen Dalziel Tallman, Sharon K. Scott, and Carrie Russell, “Looseleaf Publica-tions in Large Academic Libraries: The Looseleaf Recataloguing Project at the Universityof Arizona,” Serials Librarian 16, no. 3/4 (1989): 34–35.

20. Crystal Graham, “What’s Wrong with AACR2: A Serials Perspective,” in TheFuture of the Descriptive Cataloging Rules: Papers from the ALCTS Preconference,AACR2000 American Library Association Annual Conference, Chicago, June 22, 1995,edited by Brian E. C. Schottlaender (Chicago: America Library Association, 1998), 73.

21. Hallam, Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., 4.22. Cataloging Service Bulletin, no. 44 (Spring 1989): 25–28; Cataloging Service

Bulletin, no. 50 (Fall 1990): 29–31.23. Hallam, Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., 2–3.24. Tallman et al., “Looseleaf Publications in Large Academic Libraries,” 34; Cecilia

Kwan and Phyllis Marion, “Cataloging and the Online Catalog,” in Law Librarianship:A Handbook for the Electronic Age, AALL Publication Series No. 47, edited by PatrickE. Kehoe, Lovisa Lyman, and Gary Lee McCann (Littleton, CO: Fred B. Rothman, 1995), 360.

25. Byron Cooper, “Cataloging Loose-Leaf Publications,” Library Resources & Tech-nical Services 26, no. 4 (1982): 374.

26. Ibid., 375.27. Tallman et al., “Looseleaf Publications in Large Academic Libraries,” 39–44.28. Cole, “Caught in a Bind,” 81.29. CONSER is a cooperative cataloging organization that sets standards and policies

for the cataloging of serials. For more information about CONSER see “What is CONSER.”Available at: http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/aboutcn1.html

30. Jean Hirons, Les Hawkins, and Pat French, “AACR2 and You: Revising AACR2to Accommodate Seriality,” Serials Librarian 37, no. 3/4 (2000): 250.

31. See note 21.32. Graham, “What’s Wrong with AACR2,” 73.33. Ibid., 73.34. The Joint Steering Committee’s International Conference on the Principles and

Future Development of AACR, was held in Toronto, Canada, 1997. Conference reportsand discussion list archives are available at:http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/intlconf1.html

35. “Jean Hirons Appointed CONSER Program Coordinator,” Conserline, no. 11(December 1997). Available at: http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/conserline/conserline-11.html

36. CONSER, “CONSER Task Force on AACR Review.” Available at:http://www.loc. gov/acq/conser/aacr.html

37. Jean Hirons and Crystal Graham, “Issues Related to Seriality,” in Principles andFuture of AACR, 180–213.

38. “JSC Conference Addresses Seriality,” Conserline, no. 11 (December 1997). Avail-able at: http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/conserline/conserline-11.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


39. Hirons and Graham, “Issues Related to Seriality,” 181.40. Ibid., 186.41. Ibid., 180.42. Ibid.43. Ibid.44. Ibid., 209.45. Ibid.46. Jean Hirons, Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Report to the Joint

Steering Committee on the Revision of AACR2 (Joint Steering Committee for Devel-opment of RDA, 1999), 3. Available at:http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/ser-rep.pdf

47. Ibid.48. Ibid., 5. For explanation and analyses of the recommendations see Regina

R. Reynolds, “Back to the Future of AACR: Retooling Former Cataloging Practices toSolve Problems Old and New,” Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services24, no. 1 (2000): 21–31.

49. Hirons, Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Report, 18.50. CONSER, “AACR2 Revision and Associated Activities,” in Annual Report of the

CONSER Program, 1998/1999, comp. by the Library of Congress, Serial Record Divi-sion, October 1999. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/annualreport-1999.html

51. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “Revising AACR2 toAccommodate Seriality,” in Historic Documents, Outcomes of the Meeting of the JointSteering Committee Held in Brisbane, Australia, 18–20, October 1999. Available at:http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/9910out.html

52. Jean Hirons, Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Rule Revision Propos-als, 4JSC/Chair/68/Chair follow-up/2 (Joint Steering Committee for Development ofRDA, 2000). Available at: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/ch12.pdf

53. Sara Shatford Layne, “Report and Impressions From the International Conferenceon AACR, Toronto, Canada, October 23–25, 1997,” in “Serials Spoken Here: Reports onConferences, Institutes and Seminars,” edited by Susan Davis, Serials Review 24, no. 2(Summer 1998): 117.

54. Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA, “Revising AACR2 toAccommodate Seriality,” in Historic Documents, Outcomes of the Meeting of the JointSteering Committee Held in London, England, 13–15 September 2000. Available at:http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/0009out.html; Joint Steering Committee for theDevelopment of RDA, “Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality,” in Historic Docu-ments, Outcomes of the Meeting of the Joint Steering Committee Held in Washington,DC, USA, 2–4 April 2001. Available at: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/0104out.html;and Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “Revising AACR2 toAccommodate Seriality,” in Historic Documents, Outcomes of the Meeting of theJoint Steering Committee Held in Ottawa, Canada, 15–17 October 2001. Available at:http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/0110out.html

55. Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, Anglo-American CataloguingRules, 2nd ed., 2002 rev., Appendix D-2.

56. Hirons, Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Report, 13.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


57. Jean Hirons, “Seriality: What Have We Accomplished? What’s Next?” Cataloging& Classification Quarterly 36, no. 3/4 (2003): 123.

58. Hirons, Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Report, 9–10.59. Robin Wendler, “‘Form’ and Functionality in Library Systems,” in Jean Hirons et

al., “The ‘Ongoing’ Umbrella: Rethinking the Redefinition of ‘Serial,’” Serials Review24, no 3/4 (1998): 113–117.

60. Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Discus-sion Paper No. 114, “Seriality and MARC 21,” May 14, 1999. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp/dp114.html; Library of Congress, Network Developmentand MARC Standards Office, Discussion Paper No. 119, “Seriality and MARC 21,” May1, 2000. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp/dp119.html

61. Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Pro-posal No. 2001-05, “Changes in MARC 21 to Accommodate Seriality,” May 7, 2001.Available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2001/2001-05.html; Library of Congress,Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Proposal No. 2001-04, “MakingField 260 Repeatable in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format,” May 7, 2001. Available at:http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2001/2001-04.html

62. Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Discus-sion Paper No. 114, “Seriality and MARC 21,” May 14, 1999.

63. Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Discus-sion Paper No. 119, “Seriality and MARC 21,” May 1, 2000.

64. Library of Congress, Discussion Paper No. 114, May 14, 1999.65. Robert Bremer, “OCLC and the Redefinition of the Bibliographic Universe,” in

Jean Hirons et al., “The ‘Ongoing’ Umbrella: Rethinking the Redefinition of ‘Serial,’”Serials Review 24, no. 3/4 (1998): 117–118.

66. Ibid., 118.67. OCLC, Technical Bulletin 247, OCLC-MARC Format Update 2002 (November

2002): 9. Available at:http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/247/247.pdf

68. David Adams, OCLC Customer Support Department, e-mail to author, December26, 2007.

69. OCLC, Technical Bulletin 247, 3.70. OCLC, Technical Bulletin 252, OCLC-MARC Format Update 2006 (July 10,

2006): 2. Available at:http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/252/252.pdf

71. Ibid., 4.72. Les Hawkins, “Cataloging Web-based Integrating Resources,” Serials Review 27,

no. 3/4 (2001): 95.73. Program for Cooperative Cataloging, Task Group on Implementation of Integrating

Resources, “Final Report,” Revised October 4, 2001, 1. Available at:http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/archive/tgintegrfinal.pdf

74. Program for Cooperative Cataloging, “Annual Report FY2007.” Available at:http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/archive/annualreports/PCCAnnualFY07.html

75. Hirons, “Seriality: What Have We Accomplished?” 130.76. Library of Congress, Discussion Paper No. 119, May 1, 2000.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


77. Judy Kuhagen, Library of Congress’ Cataloging Policy & Support Office, e-mailto author, January 9, 2008.

78. Program for Cooperative Cataloging, Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual, 4.Available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/irman.pdf

79. Les Hawkins, “Program for Cooperative Cataloging Tools Related to the 2002Revision of AACR2,” in “Electronic Journal Forum,” Serials Review 29, no. 1 (2003): 41.

80. Elena Romaniuk, “Taking on Revised Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules: WhatIs a Serialist to Do?” Serials Librarian 39, no. 3 (2001): 2–3.

81. Cole, “Caught in a Bind,” 81.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:56

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14