history of the conser program (1986–1994)

HISTOIRY OF Tmc CONSER P~~~~M

(1986-1994)

Bifl Anderson

The CQNSER (~onve~io~ of Serials) Project started in the early 1970s as a cooperative effort to build a widely accessible online catalog of biblio5ap~c records for serial publicatians, and to develop standards for serials cataloging. CQNSER’s eariy years are fully d~um~~ted in the literature and a biblio~~phy is included in Appendix B following this history. Use of the UCLC database was a practical ~a~~ernent for housing the Project’s records, with plans to distribute the records internationaliy through the Library of Con- gress (LC) and the National Library of Canada (NLC). It was initially expected that the database would reach ~~~~ records and the effort would be completed in less than five years. The growth of the database far exceeded expectations by 1980 and CONSER’s activities expanded into other programs and projects including the CQNSER Abs~cti~g and Indexing Coverage Project, the U.S. Newspaper Program (USNP), and the Name Auth~~ty Cooperative (NACO). These developments, along with other significant changes, led to the need for a comprehensive review of the Project by the mid- 1980s.

AHberson, CONSER Specialist Library of Congress, Serial Record Division, Washington, DC 2~54~4i~.

This history of the Program begins with CONSER’s formal review in 1985 that Ied to its st~ctuml reorganization and name change, A new governance and mern~rs~jp structure was developed, and its focus was shifted from the retrospective conversion of serial records tu current online cataloging and record mainte-

nance. CONSER’s goafs to support bibliog~phi~ stan-

dards for serials cataloging and to provide leadership in the serials information community held steady, before and after the Project review. This reorganization set the stage for a resurgence in membership and substantial efforts toward resolving a number of issues fundamen- tal to serials cataloging: record maintenance, multiple versions, subject cataloging, computer files, and cataloging simplification. With most of these issues largely resolved, the database of program records showed a continuing growth in the number of records while maintai~i~g a high level of quality.

the Airlie House retreat in November 1986 culminated the year-long review process.

Several key meetings that transformed the “Heynen- Bfixrud report” into action took place in 1986. Early in the year, the CONSER Participants and Advisory groups met and unanimously agreed on a number of re~o~endations~ including:

COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT REVIEW

I. The need to continue CONSER as a major international cooperative bibliographic network;2

2. The necessity for continued attention to quality control, training, and adequate documentation of policies and procedures;

It became apparent to many in the CONSER Project by 1985-aver 10 years after the Project began-that a formal review and strategic pfanning effort were in order. CONSER was originally conceived as a finite project, but as early as 1979 it was decided that the Project would continue indefinitely. By 1985, the CONSER database included over ~~,~ records; approximately 340,000 were project-reviewed and determined to meet CONSER standards. In 1985, the Library of Congress, in consultation with the Nationaf Library of Canada and the Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC), initiated a critical review of CONSER to address four major areas of concern:

3, The requirement to publicize new or emerging project activities, and;

4. A reaffirmation that all CONSER records are free of any copyright restrictions.

A Roles and Goals Committee met in the spring of 1986 and outlined numerous CONSER responsibilities:

1. To promote project objectives through liaison with national and i~temational organizations, and advise on objectives and priorities with the aid of the CONSER Advisors (now, CONSER Council- ors)?

1. The goals and objectives of the Project; 2. The tasks that must be performed if the goals and

objectives were to be achieved;

3 -1

3.

3. Membership criteria, relating both to new and existing participants, and;

4. Management structure. 4.

To further this review, in June 1985 LC contracted with Information Interchange Corp. to study the CON- SER Project and prepare r~~o~endations for its future. The consultants conducted extensive inter- views with 75 individuals within CONSER and the library community, solicited comments on CONSER from the i~fo~atio~ profession at large, and carried out a full literature search. The final report,’ authored by Jeffrey Heynen and Julia Blixrud, provided an exhaustive list of recommended actions and gave a sug- gested planning framework. A total of 103 recommendations were issued, ranging from the general nature of the Project to details concerning the database. The structure of a proposed ptan of action was dso included in the recommendations. A key element in the report was the proposal for a special planning meeting, and

5.

To develop, review, and approve long-term strategies, plans, and goals; and to initiate, review, and approve policy; To develop and maintain a ~o~u~ications infra- structure for managerial and operational matters; and to provide administrative and systems support: To continue coordinating CONSER-related projects (U.S. Newspaper Program (USNP), A&I Coverage Project, etc.); To produce and distribute Program documentation (e.g., the CONSER Editing Guide), and other CONSER products (e.g., CONSER Microfiche); and to issue promotional material and articles, including the CUNSER newsletter (now, CON- SERfine);

6. To input and upgrade records to CONSER standards, to maintain record content, and to perform quahty controt;

7. To develop and administer a training program, and: 8. To continually review operational procedures.

in July of that year the CONSER Membership Committee met and dealt with major issues involving membership categories, criteria, and requirements.

2 SERIALS REVLFW - Elm ANDEYWN -

CONSER AMLIE HOUSE RETREAT

The three-dz-iy Airtie Huuse re?m& was heid in &e fall of 1986 to follow-up on many of the majur issues ident~~ed and to formalize other changes that had been initiated by the review process. The CONSER Partici- pants Group and Advisory Committee met with the following objectives: to rev&&e and refocus CONSER through developing a shared perception of the goals, objectives, structure, and operating procedures for the Project; to clarify the membership criteria; and to develop an a&on plan, iucluding responsibilities and schedules for the immediate tasks identified. The retreat sparked an energized refocusing within CON- SER and led to decisive action on a wide array of issues.

The newly restructured Policy ~o~tt~e changed the name of the urganizatiun from the CONSER (Con- version of Serials) Pruject to the CONSER (Coopera- tive Online Serials) Program. The name change reflected a new focus on cataloging current titles, database maiute~ance, and the ongoing nature of the cooperative effort.

A new mission statement was adopted,’ along with five explicit goats with related objectives and tasks, The following goals were adopted for CGNSER:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The CONSER database should be a widely available source of automotive bib~~u~aph~~ informal lion about serials. The membership will consist of institutions committed to participating jn the CONSER Program at a national and international level with potential local and regiona applications. The CONSER Program should operate in a coop erative manner with an effective and efficient governance and management structure. The CONSER Program should support and promulgate standards and estabbsh necessary stan- d~d~~~ practices for the bjb~io~aphic contrd of serials. The CONSER Program should exercise leadership in the fields of serials management and education, and CGNSER achievements should be promoted.

This new structure-a practical framework for operating---became known as the CONSER Plan, the provisions of which were later included in the CON- SER Edihzg Guide (CEG)_ Reevaluation of the plan has been ongoing. It was rest~~tu~d in 1993 and is now reviewed and updated annually, The five goals

state Program intent and provide direction, each with supporting objectives and specific tasks to heip accom- phsh the gods. A number of task forces were set up following the 19% retreat to support specific objectives in the Plan. The task force structure, as documented in the CEG, has been the main investigative tool for the Program. (By December 3987 seven task forces were operating in CONSER, ~~~u~ng Database m~uten~~e and retrospective conversion, Format integration, Multiple versions, and Vernacular input.)

The first goal in the Plan centers on the database. Participants reaffirmed the principle that the CUNSER record is a bib~io~ph~~ record and that other related records should not fall within CONSER’s purview (e.g., holdings records, acquisitions records). The database was also envisioned to achieve comprehensive- ness: to eventually encompass all time periods and ~~temat~ona~ interests. The a~t~ntie~on process-a review process that assures that record elements con- form to CONSER policies and practices-became the means for defining the status of the CONSER record, a process that assures accurate and un~bign~~s identi- fication of the item cataloged. A ~o~tment to record rn~uten~~ is also expressed in the Plan. Mem~rs~p is the second goal in the Plan, “Issues pertaining to CONSER membership received much attention at the retreat, with a fitting first objective being the expansion of active membership in the CONSER Program Par- ticipants approved four categories of membership (national, full, associate, and affiliate), each character- ized by different requirements, including type and quantity of ~~~loging activity, New and continuing mem~~hip review procedures were adopted.“’

Governance and m~agement of the Program were also restructured. An Executive Committee was estab- hshed and the three existing groups were redefined into new ~o~itte~s. The Policy Committee, including represent~~es from all national- and full-Ievel members, became the de~~sjon~rn~ng body for the Pro- gram, approving new members and setting broad-level policies, The Gperations ~~~ttee, with representatives from all p~~ipating institutions, became respon- sible for technical and operational matters, including training and d~umentatio~‘ The Advisory Committee was also established to draw from a wide range of national and i~temation~ o~~~izations. This group was later restructured to become the CONSER Coun- cilors, which meets with the Policy Committee and includes ~presen~~ves from pru~nent fib&es md library networks.

A regular meeting schedule for the Committees became established so that the Policy and Operations committees would meet at least once a year, while the Executive Co~ittee, a sub-group of the Policy Com- mittee, was scheduled to meet several times between Policy Committee meetings to advance policy issues. OCLC committed resources to support the new meeting schedule. The office of the CONSER Coordinator at LC assumed the main coordinating and organizing functions for the various committees and task forces.

Goals four and five address standards and leadership. CONSER committed itself to support efforts to resolve USMARC format issues involving non-print serials and to contribute to the resolution of issues relating to multiple versions of serial publications. The Policy Committee proposed a new leadership role for the Program through continuing education efforts to further serial ~ataloging~ and to provide more information to the library community about CONSER, including the publication of a CONSER annual report.

MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENTS

After the 1986 retreat, the principal elements were in place to allow for an important expansion in CONSER membership.6 A mechanism to input records was established for members not working in the OCLC database, and new categories were established for associate and affiliate members with reduced requirements and levels of activity. Full members must perform a minimum of 400 authentication and maintenance transactions per year, of which 150 are newly authenticated full-level records. Associate members must perform at least 200 authentication and mainten~~e transactions, including 75 newly authenticated full-level records. Affiliate members enhance or maintain records and must revise at least 200 records annually. LC devised a ‘~~hronology for New Members” to help new participants and LC staff keep track of the steps involved in the membership and training process (published in the CEG in 1987). In 1987, a survey was dist~buted to CONSER members to provide a breakdown of each institution’s collection interests and language coverage. This profile of CON- SER members was devised to be a tool for the selec- tion of new members so that institutions that focus on subject areas and language collections not represented in CONSER could be solicited.

The Center for Research Libraries (CRL) and the University of Georgia (UC) Libraries became the first new members of the CONSER Program in 1987. CRL

was the first library to be admitted to CGNSER since 1983 and the first to apply under the new membership guidelines. CRL’s collection added a unique scholarly collection to the Program covering a wide range of languages and subjects. CRL had been an active NACO participant since October 1986 and an “enhance” library in OCLC. Their earlier involvement with the USNP introduced them to the CONSER Program.

UG Libraries at the time of membership ranked third in the U.S. for serials purchased and fourth in total expenditures for serials. Georgia has since pursued a special effort towards subject e~an~ement of serial records and has furthered the development of subject cat~oging policies.

.lust one year later, in 1988, three more members joined the Program: Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology (MIT), Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), and EBSCO Publishing. MIT brought to CONSER a collection strong in the sciences, engineering, and archi- tecture.

The acceptance of CAS and EBSCO as affiliate members marked an important new chapter in CON- SER’s development. As a new category within the Pro- gram, the affiliate level allows members to use their special resources and expertise to contribute to the CONSER database by adding and maintaining fields covering publishing and abstracting and indexing (A&I) information. CAS adds the CODEN (an identifying code based on the title) and A&I notes to CON- SER records, while EBSCO focuses on subscription info~atio~ and frequency. CAS had worked closely with CONSER during the A&I Coverage Project and EBSCO had long used the CONSER database as a major source for its publication, The Serials ~~r~~f~j~: An ~~~e~~i~~~u~ Reference Book. The Faxon Co., a major international serial subscription service, joined CONSER in 1989, and in 1991 BIOSIS, the world’s largest English language A&I service for the life sciences, abo joined the Program-both as affiliate members. Faxon and BIOSIS also focus on adding sub- sc~ption or A&I info~ation to an existing record.

The most recent addition to CONSER’s membership came in late 1994: the Research Libraries of the New York Public Library (NYPL). NYPL is one of the five largest libraries in the world, with its serial collection numbering over 400,000 titles. The Research Libraries collect serials on a broad range of subjects and in many languages. NYPL’s Serials Retrospective Conversion Project has a two year goat to convert 100,000 records to machine-readable form.

Growth in the associate mern~rsh~~ Gategory has been primarily due to the success of the U.S. Newspa- per Program. As the development of the state newspaper project took form in the f98f)s, a study stream of new members entered the fold. By the end of 1994 all 50 states had received funding in the USNP through the National Endowment for the Humanities. The effect on the CONSER database has been ~igni~~~t~ Over 120,000 newspaper records resided in the database in June 1994, comprising 18 percent of the 677,~ ~ONSER-anthenti~ated records. USNP also represents the largest union list group supported by CONSER, with over ~~0~~ holdings records (most recently published in OCLC’s ~~~~~~ S&&g ~~w~~~- per Program NationaE Unim List, fourth edition). Over 20 USNP state projects were cataloging in CON- SER in 1994,

Anuther addition to the associate category came at the end of 1993, with the membership of the American Theological Library Association (ATLA). ATLA includes 190 member libraries working in the field of religion. me Association first plans to focus on pre- 1950 publi~a~ons and will largely contribute records for p~se~ati~n ~~~fo~s. CONSER activities will be solely performed by the Association”s Preservation Programs’ office in Evanston, IL, until a lamination function is established for its member libraries.

The Nations Register of ~~rofo~ asps ANY) Project started con~bu~ng records in the Summer of X994. The Association of Research Librar- ies awarded a grant to QCLC, Inc. for a three-year project to input records for preservation master nega- tive rni~r~f~~s from Harvard, New York Public Library3 and LC-under the umbrella of the ~MM. OCLC will process up to 29,OOO records over the life of the Project.

After a growth spurt foilowing the Program’s reor- g~i~a~on in 1986, support for cooperative cataloging showed a drop-off in &e early tW0s as many libraries cut technical services budgets and focused on local needs. Yale University and the U.S. Department of the Interior left the Program in 1991. By 199% two other members dropped out: Faxon Company and Boston neologies Institute. In the same year5 the New Serial Titles Section of LC’s Serial Record Division was dis- banded. The publication, New Serial W4?s, which had previously included holdings symbols and contributions from CQNSER and rnmy non-CONSER libraries became limited to CONSER P‘rogram records. Current CONSER members are listed in Appendix A.

CONSER DATABASE

The CONSER database is defined as, ‘The set of serial records i~~u~~reated or premise intended to the OCLC database that are authenticated by CONSER Participants. Although some or all CONSER records reside in the local databases of CQNSER ~ns~mtions, rn~nten~~ is ~~0~ OIZ CONSER records resid- ing on QCLC, making that the autho~~tiv~ set of CONSER records.“?

By the early-198Os, it became clear to many in CONSER that the centralized authentication process ~cond~ct~ by LC and P&C) had become unwieldy. A new ~e~~-a~~~~ticati~~ ~~g~rnen~ was estab~shed for members by 1984, but not before a large backlog of surrogates and records had ~~~~rnulated at LC. As self- authentication became operational, the number of ~nau~e~ti~at~d records in the CONSER database approached 2~,~. In 1987, CONSER redefined the “CONSER record” to make record authentication the key identifying element. Authentication was also redefined in 1987 to include:

1. the process of reviewing records for content to ensure coni%rmance to CONSER practice and con- ventions; ilnd

2. the additive of elements to indicate the degree of au~o~tati~en~s of data in the record,

At the end of 1987, the CONSER database inchrded over 390,OOO records (authenticated records only). In June 1990, the half-million mark was broken and by the end of 1994, over 69~,UOO serial records resided in the database.

TQ support goal I in the CONSER phm-“The CONSER database shall be a widely available source of au~o~tati~e bibliographic information about serials”” (itaIics s~pplied~the CONSER file on BCLC is dis~buted to LC and the National Library of Canada for further dis~bution to the library community. In March 1991) LC culminated a three-year project to replace old Butch-pr~essin~ routines with more com- patible and streamlined programs to convert and load OCLC tapes of CONSER records into LC’s system. To coincide with the software installation, LC replaced its CONSER file by loading the complete OCLC CONSER database to create a new serials master file for LC. The new serials file was first distributed in April 1991 and included almost l?,oQa records in addition to those that had been in the old CONSER

file. In many cases, the new file also contained a more current version of the record.

While technical configurations other than depen- dence on OCLC were investigated and recommended as far back as the mid-1970s the operational mode of activity has remained as it was at the beginning of CONSER-exclusively on OCLC. The practical arrangement originally devised for CONSER to operate on OCLC proved to be a more long-term solution for a variety of reasons. Implementation of the OCLC PRISM Service in 1991 showcased advances in the cataloging system, enhancing both searching and record inputing. Keyword searching introduced by OCLC in early 1993 further enhanced catalogers’ search capabilities.

Planning began in 1980 to develop the Linked Sys- tems Project (LSP). This became the principle hope for overcoming the li~tations of the CONSER file being bound to a single database. LC, RLG, WLN, and OCLC worked to link dissimilar computer systems through common co~unications protocols. The overall goal was for the national database to rely on online communications for sharing and accessing records between a variety of databases. The SP application became operational in 1987 when RLG members-including Yale University and the University of Michigan-began to contribute name authority records. In March 1988, Indiana University became the first OCLC member to input name headings using the LSP application; LC’s Serial Record Division followed soon after. LSP currently operates as the means by which OCLC and RLG members contribute authority records to the LC/NACO authority file. Efforts to merge and coordinate the OCLC and RLG databases through the further development of LSP failed in 199 1. CONSER had hoped to use LSP for the online input of serial records, particularly by non-OCLC members.

In 1992, the CONSER Policy Committee considered questions relating to a potential batchload process for loading serial records into OCLC as an alternative to LSP applications for bibliographic records. CON- SER’s Task Force on Batchload Cont~bution investigated new tools in 1993 and 1994 (e.g., electronic file transfer and the use of the Internet), although difftcul- ties involving multiple updates and duplication of effort remained. Large scale interest in working on local systems spurred further developments in processing updates and contributions of serials records to accommodate batchloading into OCLC from local systems. Loading of newly created records through FI’P was implemented in OCLC by 1994.

CJK CATALOGING

One of the more specific developments of the CON- SER database involves the inclusion of vernacular data in CONSER records for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (CJK) language serials. The CONSER Vernacular Task Force was established in X987 to study how vernacular data could be added to CONSER records. The key issues discussed by the Task Force included the input, maintenance, and dist~bution of CJK records.

By 1990, significant progress in documenting guidelines for the input of CJK records was reached as the Task Force reviewed a draft of CEG Appendix 0, “Cre- ating Records with Non-Roman Data for Chinese, Jap- anese, and Korean Serials.” OCLC and the Library of Congress worked out the arrangements for the pur- chase of CJK terminals and the dist~bution of CJK records. In late 1991 LC began creating records with variable tields in Chinese. Four additional CONSER members were prepared to start inputting CJK records by early 1992: Center for Research Libraries, Indiana University, University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Washington.

Roman-only versions of the CJK records are still distributed in LC’s monthly MARC Disrribution Ser- vice--Serials and in MDS-Complete. LC’s Catalog- ing Distribution Service began distribution of the full CJK versions in MD%----Serials CJK, starting in 1992.

The application of CJK cataloging in CONSER institutions proved challenging in a number of areas. A lengthy training and review process was necessary to ensure accurate application of the new guidelines. OCLC assisted with training and the Library of Con- gress helped to review early CJK records of CONSER members. Extra efforts were often required to enable the vernacular data to migrate into local systems after their input into OCLC. The maintenance of these records to ensure that the current version resides in the local system can also be a challenge. The need for vernacular authority records has also been recognized since the romanization of CJK characters can be inter- preted differently.’

SERIALS CATALOGING ISSUES

With a refocused committee structure to address serials cataloging issues and a more diverse membership for implementation, CONSER was in position to tackle some of the persistent challenges in serials cataIoging. The following issues represent those that have had the greatest impact on the database. Many of the following

6 SERIALSREVIEW - BILLANDERSON-

topics are quite basic to serials cataloging and are never fully resolved, but considerable effort was expended to develop a standardized approach for practical ongoing operations.

RECORDMAINTENANCE

The CONSER mission statement issued after the 1986 retreat identified a new effort to maintain serial records. The newly formed CONSER Database Task Force met several times in 1987 and issued recommendations on record maintenance that were accepted by the Policy Committee later in the year. New maintenance procedures were applied for six months on a trial basis before being fully established. In 1988, publication of “Section B, Policies and Practices” in the CEG included a subsection on record maintenance to document these new procedures. This established record maintenance as a “process of ensuring the continued authoritativeness of a CONSER record through addi- tions, changes, or deletions.“”

The desire to make the record maintenance effort more efficient and timely led the Policy Committee to set up a new task force in 1992: Task Force on the Maintenance of CONSER Records by Non-CONSER Institutions. The charge was to investigate how non- CONSER OCLC members might contribute to the maintenance effort on the CONSER database. By the summer of 1993 two areas had been identified as mer- iting further investigation:

1. A title change/cessation mechanism involving a selected group of non-CONSER libraries, and;

2. A subject and classification enrichment capability open to all OCLC members.

An experimental maintenance project started opera- tion in November 1993 to focus on title changes and cessations. Two libraries initially joined the project- University of Kentucky and the University of Califor- nia at San Diego-which was monitored by LC. Three more institutions were added to the project in 1994: Vanderbilt University, University of California at Irv- ine, and SUNY at Buffalo Health Sciences Library. By the end of 1994, CONSER was planning to coordinate broader maintenance activities in a regional structure so that full CONSER members, closer to the maintenance participants, might serve as mentors and monitor maintenance activities of non-CONSER libraries. Guidelines for the project were revised to broaden the maintenance activities.

OCLC began discussions with its members on the usefulness of allowing the addition of subject elements to minimal-level serial records. In November 1994, the CONSER Operations Committee showed broad support for OCLC to release minimal records (including CONSER’s) to its members for subject enhancement.

SE~LREPR~DUCTI~NSA~

MULTIPLEVERSIONS

A clear challenge to serials cataloging emerged in the mid- 1980s as the proliferation of reproductions and bibliographic versions arrived on the library scene. In 1987, the CONSER Multiple Versions Task Force was formed and charged with considering the most effective means of representing different manifestations of the same work in online databases. In the same year, a Multiple Versions Committee was formed at the Library of Congress to address the issue. In 1988, the CONSER task force drafted a report on handling multiple versions in the cooperative environment and provided comments on a preliminary report of the LC Committee, Communications of Records for Multiple Versions.

The CONSER task force completed its report to the Policy Committee one year later, recommending two possible options for the treatment of serials issued in multiple physical formats. Later that year, a Multiple Versions Forum, organized by LC and funded by the Council on Library Resources, was held at Airlie House, Va. to focus on preservation microform masters and service copy versions of original print monographs and serials. A two-tiered structure was developed at the Forum involving a master record linked to holdings records for various versions. Due to systems limita- tions involving the two-tiered structure, CONSER determined that an interim approach was desirable that would include the linking of bibliographic records that constitute a multiple versions record set. The CON- SER Executive Committee also expressed a desire to further explore the content of such records with the possibility that version records could include a minimal core of information.

New CONSER policies on the cataloging of reproduction microforms were completed and documented in the CEG in 1992. The new guidelines are closely coordinated with the ARL guidelines. l1 Requirements for preservation microforms include the recording of the span of issues reproduced, and procedures for linking records.

-HISTORYOFTHE CONSER PROGRAM (1986-1994)- SUMMER~~~~ 7

In 1993 the American Library Association, Commit- tee on Cataloging: Description and Access (ALA CC:DA) Task Force on Multiple Versions issued its r~o~endations, which included a three-tiered record structure: the bibliographic record for the original, the bibliographic information for the microform, and the holdings info~ation. CUNSER endorsed the committee report while recognizing that several issues were unresolved, including the communication of subordi- nate bibliographic records for reproductions.

CONSER more fully addressed the cataloging of microform reproductions with the 1994 publication of Module 32, “Microform Serials,” of the CONSER Cat- aloging manual, A brief history of the multiple versions issue is presented along with detailed instructions for cataloging reproduction microforms.

The descriptive portion of CONSER records has tra- ditionally received the most attention, although the majority of records do include subject elements. In the fall of 1988, the Subject and Classification Task Force was established and charged with developing CON- SER subject analysis guidelines. This group surveyed the extent of subject analysis and classification data available in CUNSER records, the level of subject treatment, the thesauri and schedules used for subject treatment, and the effort employed to maintain subject and classification data. The Task Force aIs0 considered the desirability of expanding subject and classification data in the CONSER database and the extension of au~entication to include subject and classification elements.

Work of the Task Force was completed in 1990 and the Policy Committee adopted several recommendations including:

1. CONSER members should input LC classification numbers in an 050 field when the record lacks a class number or when an alternative class number is needed;

2. CONSER records should not reflect the authoritativeness of subject analysis data either at the record level or at the field level due to the volatile nature of subject data, and;

3. Changes should be made to the CQNSER Editing Guide to reflect subject/classification policies relating to CONSER records.

Relevant pages of the CEG were revised and issued in the fall of 199 1.

In November 1993, a Subject Seminar was held at the Library of.Congress to further subject cataloging efforts in the Program. LC subject policy experts met with the CONSER Operations Committee to review a number of questions submitted by CUNSER catafogers and their supervisors. Quality in subject cataloging and the necessary documentation to support quality subject analysis was also discussed.

In the spring of 1994 the Policy Committee endorsed a subject standard for CONSER that sets forth the requirements for different record levels, and the tools to be used for subject analysis. The new policy is expected to be finalized with the documentation of new record requirements for the different record levels.

A subject cataloging review was conducted at LC following the 1993 Seminar. Catalogers in the Regional and Cooperative Cataloging Division in LC reviewed a total of 600 CONSER records over a four- month period, LC’s Serial Record Division monitored the review process and calculated a 90 percent field accuracy rate for subject elements in CONSER records. The main distinctions between LC’s and CONSER’s subject analysis were identified: choice of call number, the number of subject headings, and the number of subject subdivisions assigned.

CATALOGINGSIMPLIFICATIQN

The impetus to simplify cataloging emerged in the late 1980s and initially focused on revisions to the Library ofcongress Rule Interpretations. Revisions to LCRIs involving serials are generally initiated through LC’s Serial Record Division in consultation with the CONSER Operations Committee. Two important LCRIs involving serials were revised in 1987: 21.2A and 21.2C. These effectively reduced the number of serial title changes requiring new records. l3y increas- ing the number of situations involving a change in title that do nor require a new catalog record, the need to recatalog serials described under earlier rules was also reduced. Cataloging information describing complex situations consequently became more intelligible to end users. The 1988 revised edition of AACR 2 later incorporated some of the LCRIs that simplified serials cataloging (e,g., 2 1.2A).

In 1990, LCRIs were revised to reduce some of the complexities of the catalog record, as well as unneces- sary demands placed on catalogers. The concept of “cataloger’s judgment” became explicitly incorporated

8 SERIALS REVL~ZW - BYLL ANDERSON -

into sever& LCRIs ~nv~~~~ng publisher ~~~#~ati~n, thereby altowing catalogers to follow individuti rea- scuIing rather than strictly along to complex rtdes. ~n~cate br~c~e~ng c~~ve~t~~~ in seriaXs ~at~~g~ng were discarded with the hrdadening of permissible “sources af information” for serial records, Decisions ~n~~~ving series tracings were s~rnp~i~~~~ and the es~b~~s~~~~ vfca~g~es of “minoz cb~~~es~’ fGr COT- perate budy names, prev~~ns~~ considered to be ‘%a.+ ants,” reduced authority work in many cases.

Work toward a more ~ff~c~ent cata~~~~~g process was refocused in 1993, since the effort ta simplify cataioging tb.mugh the revisian of the LCRI brought fewer resufts. ~~~~~wjng a c~rnb~~ed meeting @f the CON- SER Policy Committee ant! the Nashua ~~~rat~ve Cataloging Program, the Caoperativol. Cataloging Council (CCC> was established. The CCC was first c~vened in Apri1 1993 to ~~n~~g~t~ t$~e Naalsnztt ~~~rn~~Y~ ~at~g~ng fer ~u~p~~ cataloging @aten the bairn for ~~p~~a~v~ Catdog- ing). Sever task groups were created, ~clud~~g a Synods %sk Grip. In six-month’s time, the CCC Standards Task Gmup developed a set of record r~u~~rn~~rs~~ cmz record-that aimed ‘to achieve more use%1 records. The rn~u~~p~~ core recrrrd established P record level between minimal and fuit level cataloging designed far use in a cooperative environment. Zt was left to CONSER to develop the core recerd for seria% p~b~~ca~~~s.

The CaNSER Cure ~ern~~~§ Task Force, formed in November 1992, first ~x~n~d existing n~tionat and iRtemati5n~ record r~ui~~rnen~ for seriri%ls as stated in the U~~A~~ F’mmat, the BDS illilanuul the UCLC Smials ~~~~t, and the CI?G In $893, the ~~ra~~ns ~~~~ee engag& in a wide ranging ~s~~ss~~n of several questions relating ta “(core b~bl~~~mphjc eEe- ments”’ in serial records and endorsed ;EX, review of CONSER bibli~~ap~c ~~qu~~rnents* n~ti~~at~~n ~qu~~rne~~s~ and booty pmcedures. As the CCC core record fur ~n~~aPbs took form fate in 19B, CONSER closely foiluwed the developments of the CCC Stan~~~~ Task Group, Core sedge far musi- cal scores, sound record~u~~~ and JACKPHY materials were released in i 994.

Both the Policy and ~~a~~s c~rn~~~s grap- pied with the new record level in thek KY34 annual meetings, The Poficy Committee agreed &o endorse the new core level and its associated encoding level value, as wef as ~~t~~~ng ~~n~rn~~ Xevel cat~~~~~ for CQM- SER, ABer an ex~s~~e effort tit ~uc~~~ ~~mus revisions to the Task Force Proposaf and extended list-

~b~i~e~ begm UsiRg cumpurer me ~~a~ fix= serids by the ~d-~~g~s and the processing of these mate~~s sedately pmse~~ed unusual pr~b~~rns for catalogers, sting in 1991, the CONSER ~~ra~~~ ~~~~~e began ~~~ss~ng computer file serials on a reg~~la.r basis as RINSER ~~~ge~ became more familiar with ca~~~g~ng the new fur-mat. ExuI~ issues identified included: their $erM nature, sources of information for records, hardware requirements, and related p~bli~a~~~s~ In 2991, there were approxi- mazely records f= eIec ic setirtfs ~~~~~~~g anline ~~~d~~~s* floppy disks, and ~~R~~s~~ by the end of X 994, there were over I,050 such records in the CONSER database.

CONSER has encouraged its members TV Irointib~te records for c~rnpu~~ file i%RTtm§ in an efRx+t ta main-

tain bib~~~~~~c control of ~~rn~~~~~ i&s iswed seri- dXy. The !%st chahengr; involved ~i~~itjes in accessing the publications due to their hardware r~qu~rne~t~~ &D-ROM readers are hard to locate in mauy ~ch~~~~ ~~e~~~g areas and, until the f99t3s, access TV ~~t~~ and the ~nte~et was net c~~~ in the typical cat~~~i~g env~~nrn~~t. Catalogers often had to rely on p~~t~~uts from pnbl~cations and their accom- panying rnat~~~ to create mcords.

~~py-~sk setids were the ear$iest form of mm- puter 5ib serial ~e~era~~y a~~~ab~ and have posed few problems reIat$ng to the access~b~~jty of the ~~~~~atj~n they contain, They usually have title screens and are typically published regularly as discrete titles, Of the direct access files, CL>-RoLM setials ha~e pr~s~~t~ the most licit c~~~~g~ng issues, l%cause of rheir star- age capacity, some CD-ROM serials contain numemns

print publications that may vary from issue to issue. Others contain several years of an A&I publication or function as a version of an online database. The additional related titles or electronic versions often available can present difficult questions involving linking fields.

The remote access computer file serial (e.g., electronic journal) generally presented itself after the arrival of direct access computer files (e.g., CD- ROMs). By the 199Os, with greater access to Bitnet and the Internet, these ‘electronic serials” have become more familiar, presenting significant challenges to librarians. Description can be relatively straightfor- ward if adequate bibliographic isolation is present, but mode of access, or file name and location, can be complex and unstable. Some titles have print versions and many are available in different computer file versions (e.g., ASCII, PostScript, hype~ext~ and through different modes of access (e.g., e-mail, FIY, WWW).

Computer files cataloging was the major topic at the 1993 Operations Committee Meeting, and with the publication of the CONSER C~~a~~g~~g ~~~~~, Mod- ule 30, “Direct Access Computer File Serials,” in 1993, several issues were resolved. Module 30 covers sources of info~ation for the record and variant titles for direct access files. The second update to the CCM included a complete revision of Module 30 to include a number of fields that were newly available to serials catalogers due to format inte~ra~on.

In the spring of 1994 a new CONSER task force on electronic resources was established and charged to identify issues pe~aining to info~ation resources in electronic form and the provision of access to these resources. The Task Force initially focused on defining the issues involved, in~luding~ related standards (URL, SGML, etc.), electronic serial “versions,” a de~nition for “electronic serial,” recording access/location information, and coordination with other groups active in this area. An interim report will be presented at the 1995 ALA Mid-Winter CONSER meeting and a final report is planned for the end of 1995.

A draft version of CCM ~~~u~~ 31, on remote access computer file serials, was presented to the Oper- ations Committee in November 1994. Due to numerous ongoing developments with “electronic serials” and the fluid nature of their availability, Module 3 1 initially raised a number of issues, including:

1.

2.

10

Is the existing serials definition adequate for “net- worked” resaurces? What is a “published d~nment” over the Internet?

3. Do different computer file versions require sepa- rate records?

4. Should the chief source of information for cataloging be reconsidered?

5. How should access and location information be described?

6. What is the best means for m~n~ning and updat- ing records for remote access files?

CONSER is planning to initiate discussions on several of these issues over various related listservs. Pub- Iication of Module 3 1 is planned for June 1995.

Task 2.3 in the CONSER plan, “Provide timely and high quality documentation related to serials,” is found under the second goal: “The CONSER Program shall support and promulgate standards and establish necessary st~d~di~d practices for the bibliography control of serials.“12 The CUNSER Editing Guide, first published in 1986 with updates twice yearly, serves as the d~umentation backbone for the Program. The CEG, which describes common approaches and agreed-upon practices of its members, is used within the Program and also by the wider serials cataloging co~unity.

Each of the two parts of the CEG replaced a single document. Part I superseded the unpublished CUNSER ~~~~~~ and updated and expanded on the policies and procedures that were followed during CONSER’s early years. New documentation was also needed to record policies and practices related to CONSER members’ ability to authenticate their records and modify existing LC-authenticated records. Part II, the technical guidelines, replaced the MARC Serials Editing Guide, second CONSER edition. The publication of AACR 2 made much of the earlier documentation obsolete. Part II was designed “to provide a comprehensive guide for the content designation and input of serial records . . ~

and to define CONSER usage of USMARC data elements as they apply to current AACR 2 serials cataloging.“13

Early in 1994, CONSER announced that no more updates would be issued for the current edition of the CEG, with a plan to reissue the publication with format integration-related changes. The revised 1994 edition, issued in early 1995, includes variable fields for non- print serials previously not available in the USMARC serials format. The new edition maintains the CEG”s

-BKL?.. ANDERSON-

focus on the ~~pu~updat~ of serial records. A complete revision of the fixed field portion of the CEG will be issued as an update to the new edition, to coordinate with the full implementa~on of format integmtion* scheduled for 1996.

The COiVsER Cataloging Manual (CCM) was published in June 1993 as a ~omp~ion to the CONSER Editing Guide. Fart I, “Qriginal ~a~ogi~~,” consists of f 8 rn~ules~ and is designed to be a training tool for new catalogers, as well as 8 useful reference for expe- rienced serials catalogers. The first update was issued late in 1993. “Interpreting Pre-AACR 2 Serial Cata- loging Records” was the first module issued for Part ff, readapting Records;” and “‘E)irect Access computer File Serials” was the first issued for Par% 111, “Special Types of Serials and Special Problems,‘” which now also includes “Microform Serials.” Modules covering remote access computer files, newspapers, legal serials, and rare serials are plated for future updates.

The ~~~~~~p~~ ~~ta~ogi~g and axiom Listing Mam- ual was issued in 1990 and replaced ~~~e~s~a~e~ C~ta~og~~~ ~~~~a~, ~~NS~~S~ Edition (1984). The 1990 ~e~s~a~~~ ~a~~~~ is a training manual and reference source for cat&gem in the U.S. Newspaper Program. The first section is an “‘Editing Guide” fur newspaper catalogers-a ready reference to fields, indicators, subfields, and so forth. The “Union List- ing” section describes USNP’s use of the OCLC Union List Subsystem.

CONSER NEWSLETTER

CONSER, the newletter, was issued for 16 years as a paper publication= Starting in January 1994, the newsletter changed title and m~ium, becoming ~~~~~~- he and distributed only over the Internet. The newsletter izontinues to he a cooperative Program effort with contributions from members that cover CONSER news and serials cataloging issues. The change to an online format afforded the oppo~unity to reach a broad audience more frequently, with more timely information, while saving on publishing costs. Using UNIX listserv software mounted at the Library of Congress, CUNSERhne is dist~b~ted intemation~l~ to 814 sub- scribers (as of December 1994).

CONSER’s evolution during the year-long review process in 19851986 set the stage for its growth and a~hievemeuts in the following years, CONSER’s new

governance structure and management plan served as the foundation for the growth in membership and the resolution of humerus serials ca~oging issues, A practical approach in de&ng with these cataloging challenges could be successfully implemented by Pro- gram catalogers t~ughaut North America only with strong support from its members and solid documentation of CONSER policies and practice+ Growth of the CONSER database was substantial over the last decade (19851994), not only because of the hundreds of thou- sands of serid records added by Program catalogers, but also due to the successful development of policies relating to key issues of the day: multiple versions, cataloging simpli~~ion~ computer files, and many others, With the ~s~~en~e in cooperative cataloging efforts in the mid- 1990s CONSER’s continuing development can serve as an example to the library communityy.

U.S. NEWSPAPER PROGRAM MEMBERS- PAST AND PRESENT

State Projects

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkamas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Dejaware

Rorida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

~~~~~s

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massa~b~setts

Michigm

Minnesota

Mississippi

MiS.Wati

Mo~t~a

Nebraska

UCLC Code

CPN

ANE

ANN

ANU

CNM

CNQ

CNW

DEX

END

NLG

NVV

NPT

KPN

KNP

LNP

MBN

Ml%

MBN

Mm4

MN#

MSS

MQN MTL

NVC

State Projects

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

G~~o~a

Oregon

Pennsylvmia

Puerto Rico

Rhode &&it&

~~~~~~~~n~

South Dakou

Tennessee

Texas

U.S. Vrrgin fsfmds

Utah

Vermont

vkgitia

Wash~~~o~

Washingtan, D.C,

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyo~~g

GCLCCode

NVH

NJW

WM

NYS

NVJ

NOP

ONP

QBN

OCN

NPH

PNN

SW

SXN

TGN

PPM

NVT

UNP

NVN

NVK

SLZ

DCN

WVC

NPV

NVU

Repository QCLC Projects code

A~~~~a~ A~t~~~~~ Society NPX

Center for Research Libraries NPW

Kansas State Historical Society Nmr

Library of Congress DLC

New-York Historical Society NPU

New York Public Library YOX

State HistoricraS Society of Wi~~~~s~~ NPV

Western Reserve Historical Society NPY

NUC Code

MWA

MCR&

KHi

DLC

NW

NN

WHi

NPY

I. Anakte, Richardf, “The Ad ETOC Disussion Group on Stiab Dara zkses: fts Histay, cm-retrt Position, and Future.” Journal cf Library Au&ma&ion ISSN 0022-2240 (Decem’ber 1973) 614): 207-214,

4. And~~~n~ Greg. *~S~~ and Ex~~~~on: Passion

and P~is~~~-~~~~~ati~~e Cataloging at the Beginning of

the 21st Century (CQNSER and NCCP).‘” Cataloging & Chsificatian Quarferl~ ISSN 0163-9374 (X993) 17(3/4):

3%73.

5. Anderson, Sandy E. and Carol A. Melby. “Comparative

Analysis of the Quality of GCLC Serials Cataloging

Records* as a Function o~~on~k~~~g CohSER ~~~i~~t

and Field 8% Utilized by Serials Catalogers at the University

of Illinois,“’ Serials Librarian ISSN 0361-526X (Surnwner 1979) 3(4): 363-371.

7. “AKL Membership Reatirms Support of Linking UCiIi- ties and CONSER.” AJZ ~~~~~~r#~~ ~N~~~rn~r 1980)

I Q4:6.

8. Avram, Henriette D. and Richmd Anablc. “Next Gener- ation of CGNSER.” A~~~~~~~ ~&r~rie~ fSSN ~2~Q?6Q (~~~~~ 1937) 8(1):23-26.

9. Baker3 Barry B. “CGNSER and the National Publication Pattern Database: an update.” Ser&rds Review TSSN OOQ8-

7913 (199%) 17(3f:68.

$2. Bar&y% Linda K. “fSSN and NSDP: A Guide for the

Initiated.‘” fn The M~~gemeni of Serials Automations Cur- rpnt Technology & Strategies for Future Planning. (New York, 1982) pp_ 171-177.

13. Bartfey, Linda K. and Jean L. Hirons. “The CONSEK Editing Guide.” Seriuils Librarian ISSN 036 1-526X ( 1987) 12(1-2):131-145.

14. BaftXe~, Linda R, and Regina R. Reynolds. ‘COINSER: Revolution and Evolution” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 1SSN 0163-9374 (1988) 8:47-66.

15. Elk&, Julia @, “Making %he ConmXtion with the CONSER Abstracting and Indexing Project.” Serials Review USN 0163-8610 (Winter 1986) 12:55-63.

16. B&s, Marjorie E, ‘%ONSEK: the Cenfer for Research Libraries” Approach.” Serials Review TSSN 0098-79 I3 (1991, 17(2):61-62.

18. Butler, Todd. ‘The Union List Change Report: U&on

List M~~t~~~~~ for the United States Newspaper Pro- gram.” Serials Review ISSN 0163-8610 (1988) 14(1-2):21-

3,

19. ‘*Center for Resemch Libraries is newest member of

CGNSER Program.” Library of Congress Information Bulk- tin ISSN 004 I-7904 (June 22,1987) 46:286.

25. Cole, Jim E. and O&&a M.A. Ma&so& ‘“A decade of serials cataloging.” Serhds Librarian ISSN 0361-526X (Fall

198YWinter 1985-86) 10(1-2):103-l 16.

21. CGNSER ~ne~~l~ft~r~~ ISSN ~~63-8~~~ Mary Ellen Jacob, Editor, GCLC, fnc. No. l-25, October 197%June

1993.

22. CGNSER. Rev+ June 1993, Brochure available from

GCLC, Inc*

23. “CONSER and the National Library of Canada.” ~~~i~~a~ Library ,hJe~ ISSN ~27-~33 (May 1981)

13(5):2-S.

24. “CGNSEK (Conversion of Serials Project) Serials Project Meets First Opposition.” t&or?, Jo&rnof lSSN M50-3153 (Janus fS,fQ75) 1~~81-82.

25. “CGNSER (Cooperative Online Serials) Program Meets to Revitalize.” L,i&try of Cosagt-PSS I&rmation Bui- cetipr fSs? ou3 f-7904 fJurre 22, 1987) 46:286,

26, “CONSER Project Continued,” Libranr qf Cong~s?ss Injhmation Bulletin ISSN 0041”7QO4 (August 18, 1978) 37~t86-487.

27* “CONSER Project Renamed and Reorganized After Review.” Lihry Journal! ISSN 0363-0277 (June 1, 1987) 112:32.

28. “‘CURSER Project Study Hails Success, Advises Changes.” Librury .Iour”rz~l ISSN 0363-0277 (November I, 1986) 111:34,

mer 1986) 6: 15-29. 52. Riema;r; John J. “The Work of the CQNSER Subject

59. Vassallo, Paul. ‘%ONSER Project: An Analysis.” DrexeE Library Quarterly ISSN 0012-6 160 (July 1975) 1 I :49-59.

60. Vickery, Jim. ‘*CONSER: Serials ~ataloguing, Ameri- can Style.“’ Catalogue di Index ISSN 0008-7629 (Autumn/ winter 1991) 101-102:4.

61. W~b~d~~, Sharon. ‘%UNSER and OCLC.” Seriafs Review ISSN 0163-861~ (July 1980) 6{3):~09-112.

62. Watson, Ron and Melissa Beck. “CONSER: A Positive View (From UCLA).” Serials &r&w fSSN 0098-7913 (1991) 17(2):56-57,

63. W~l~~~rns, James W. “Serials Cataloging, 19851990: An Overview of a Half-d~ade.” T&e Seria& ~~~~~~~~~ ISSN 036 1-526X ( 1992) 22( l-2):39-69.

ment of the Interior, U.S. Newspaper Frogram, and MINI- TEX.

7. “Section A3, The CONSER Record,” in ~~~~~~ Edit- ing Gz&&. (W~s~j~gto~, DC.: Library of Congress, 1986- 1993), 1.

8. “Section Al, Overview of the CONSER Program,“ in Co#SE&Z editing Gtkde. ~~as~~~~~~= CIC: Library of Congress, X986- 1993), 2.

9. Marianne Kasica. “CONSER-CJK Cataloging at the University of P~ttsb~rgh,~‘ CoNs,EIi 24 (Jan. 1993): 4.

10. “Section B, Policies and Practices,“ in CQN.TER Edit- ing Guide. (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1986- 1993X 3.

11. Crystal Graham. Guidelinesfir Bibliographic Rectlrds

64. Wittig, G.R. “CONSER {Co-operative Conversion of Serials Project): Building an On-line fnternational Serials Data Base.” Unescct ~~~~e~j~~r C&mries ZSSN ml-5243 (September/~to~r 1977) 3 1:3&S-3 10.

for Preservation Micmjkm Mmters. (Washington, DC.: Association of Research Libraries, 1990).

12. “Section Al, Overview of the CONSER Program,” in C~~~E~ editing Glide. (W~h~ngton, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1986-1993), 3,

13. Linda R, Battley and Jean L. Hirons. “The CUNSER Editing Guide,” Serials Librarian 12, no. l-2 (1987): 135

1. Jeffroy Heynen and Julia C. Blixrud. “The CONSER Project: R~o~e~~tio~s for the Future,‘” ~~~o~~ Plan- ning Paper 14 (1986).

136.

2. The term “network” relates to the way in which the CUNSER database or portions of it (e.g.+ National Serials Data Program records) are distributed to other utilities or systems.

3. CONSER Couneilors meet annually with the CONSER Policy Committee and serve on task forces as do other committee members. Current Councilors include representatives from the British Library, the ISSN Network, Research Libraries Group, and the National Library of Australian

4. The 1987 Program mission statement: “‘To build and to maintain cooperatively a comprehensive machine-readable database of autbo~tative bibl~~~~phi~ ~nfo~~ti~u for serial publications; to uphold standards and to exercise leadership in the serials info~ation co~unity.”

5. Mary Ellen Jacob. “The CGNSER (Cooperative Online Serials) Pragram,” CON+%% 13 (May 1987): 3.

6. In 1986, CONSER consisted of the fallowing institutions: Library of Congress (i~c~u~ng the National Serials Data Program and New Serial Titles), National Agricultural Library, National Library of Canada, National Library of Medicine, Cornell University, Harvard University, Indiana University, New York State Library, U.S. GPO, UCLA, Uni- versity of Florida, University of Michigan, University of Pittsbu~b, University of Texas, University of Wash~~~on, Yale University, Boston Theological Institute, U.S. Depart-

history of the conser program (1986–1994)

Documents