Serials and Multiple Versions, or the Inexorable Trend toward Work-Level Displays
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.51n3.160Abstract
The proliferation of multiple versions for bibliographic works presents numerous challenges to the cataloger and, by extension, to the catalog user. Fifteen years after the Multiple Versions Forum held in Airlie, Virginia, online public access catalog (OPAC) users continue to grapple with confusing displays representing numerous serial manifestations (i.e., versions) resulting from the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules’ (AACR2) cardinal principle (Rule 0.24). Two initiatives offer hope for more coherent OPAC displays in light of a renewed focus upon user needs: the ongoing revision of AACR2, and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions’ Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model. A third potential tool for improving OPAC displays exists within a series of standards that have developed to parallel library needs, and today offer a robust communications medium: the MARC 21 authority, bibliographic, and holdings formats. This paper summarizes the challenges posed by multiple versions and presents an analysis of current and emerging solutions.
References
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (Ottawa: Canadian Library Assn 1998) London: Library Assn. Publishing; Chicago: ALA, 1998)n Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report (Munich: K.G. Saur 1998) UBCIM Publications, New Series, vol. 19 nSeymour Lubetzky, Principles of Work Cataloging, Final Report, Phase I, Descriptive Cataloging (Los Angeles: UCLA 1969)nKristin Antelman, '“Identifying the Serial Work as a Bibliographic Entity,”' Library Resources & Technical Services 48 no. 4 (2004): 238-255nInternational Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, “Family of ISBDs (as of June 2004),” www.ifla.org/VI/3/nd1/isbdlist.htmnAnglo-American Cataloguing Rules
, 2nd ed., 1998 rev., 8nCrystal Graham, '“Definition and Scope of Multiple Versions,”' Cataloging & Classification Quarterly (: 1990): 5-32 Patrick Wilson, “The Second Objective,” in
The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Cataloging
, ed. Elaine Svenonius, 5–16 (San Diego: Academic Press, 1989); Lynne C. Howarth, “Content versus Carrier,” in
The Principles and Future of AACR: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 23–25, 1997
, ed. Jean Weihs, 148–156 (Chicago: ALA, 1998); Chris Oliver, “
FRBR
Is Everywhere, But What Happened to the Format Variation Issue? Content versus Carrier in
FRBR
,”
The Serials Librarian
, no. 4 (2004): 27–36nGraham, “Definition and Scope of Multiple Versions,” 9nJohn C. Attig, e-mail message to the author, July 9, 2005nMatthew Beacom, Ann M. Sandberg-Fox Ed., '“Crossing the Digital Divide:
AACR2
and Unaddressed Problems of Networked Resources,”' Proceedings of the Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium, Washington, D.C., Nov. 15–17, 2000 (Washington, D.C: Library of Congress, Cataloging Distribution Service 2001): 135-154 140 n Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (Ottawa: Canadian Library Assn 2002) London: Library Assn. Publishing; Chicago: ALA, 2003): I–2nHowarth, “Content versus Carrier,” 150n'Cataloging Policy and Support Office' Cataloging Service Bulletin 81 (summer 1998): 20-21n CONSER Cataloging Manual (Washington, D.C: Library of Congress 2002): 14-15 Module 31. Online Serialsn CONSER Cataloging Manual (Washington, D.C: Library of Congress 2002): 56-57 Module 33. Newspapersn CONSER Cataloging Manual (Washington, D.C: Library of Congress 2002): 15-19 Module 31. Online Serialsn () CONSER Operations Committee Meeting, May 5–6, 2005. Summary. nALA Response to 5/JSC/AACR3/1
(draft of Part 1 of AACR3), 132. (As of Nov. 19, 2005, access to this document remained restricted.)nCharles Ammi Cutter, Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalog,
U.S. Bureau of Education Special Report on Public Libraries, Part II
(Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office 1876)nGraham, “Definition and Scope of Multiple Versions,” 5–32nCarol Mandel, Gillian M. McCombs Ed., '“Cataloging for Access,”' Access Services: The Convergence of Reference and Technical Services (Binghamton, N.Y: Haworth Press 1991): 61-68nAmy K. Weiss, '“Proliferating Guidelines: A History and Analysis of the Cataloging of Electronic Resources,”' Library Resources & Technical Services 47 no. 4 (2003): 171n Multiple Versions Forum Report (Washington, D.C: Library of Congress 1990)nIbid., 6nMichael Kaplan, '“Serial Aggregations, Multiple Versions, and the Virtual Union Catalog: The California Digital Library Catalog, SUNY, and the Ex Libris Experiences,”' The Serials Librarian 46 no. 1/2 (2004): 69-82nHowarth, “Content versus Carrier.”n () John C. Attig, “Multiple Versions Issues: A Blast from the Past,” e-mail to the CC: DA Multiple Versions Task Force, 1993. nIbidnAssociation for Library Collections & Technical Services, Cataloging & Classification Section, Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access Task Force on Rule 0.24,
Overview and Recommendations Concerning Revision of Rule 0.24
, Aug. 16, 1999. www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/docs/tf-024h.pdf (accessed Nov. 22, 2005)n () International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions,
ISBD(ER): International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources
. Revised from the ISBD(CF): International Standard Bibliographic Description for Computer Files. Recommended by the ISBD(CF) Review Group (Originally issued by K.G. Saur, Munich, 1997, as Vol. 17 in the UBCIM Publications, New Series). nWeiss, “Proliferating Guidelines,” 178nAssociation for Library Collections & Technical Services, Cataloging & Classification Section, Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access Task Force on Rule 0.24,
Overview and Recommendations Concerning Revision of Rule 0.24
, 6n () Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, “Current Activities.” nOliver, “
FRBR
is Everywhere.”n MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data (Washington, D.C: Library of Congress 2000) (accessed Mar. 26, 2007)nHowarth, “Content versus Carrier.”nAntelman, “Identifying the Serial Work,” 251nDeanna B. Marcum, '“The Future of Cataloging,”' Library Resources & Technical Services 50 no. 1 (2006): 8nHowarth, “Content versus Carrier.”nMartha M. Yee, '“
FRBR
ization: A method for Turning Online Public Finding Lists into Online Public Catalogs,”' Information Technology and Libraries 24 no. 3 (2005): 88nIbidnWilson, “The Second Objective.”nKaren Coyle, '“Future Considerations: the Functional Library Systems Record,”' Library Hi-Tech 22 no. 2 (2004): 170nJohn C. Attig, e-mail message to the author, July 9, 2005nBeacom, “Crossing the Digital Divide,” 142nInternational Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records,
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report, 7nIbidnIbidnPatrick Le Boeuf, '“
FRBR
and Further,”' Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 32 no. 4 (2001): 15-52nBarbara B. Tillett, '“A Taxonomy of Bibliographic Relationships,”' Library Resources & Technical Services 35 no. 2 (1991): 150-158 Richard P. Smiraglia, “Derivative Bibliographic Relationships: Linkages in the Bibliographic Universe,” in
Navigating the Networks: Proceedings of the ASIS Mid-Year Meeting, Portland, Oregon, May 21–25, 1994
, ed. Deborah Lines Anderson, Thomas J. Galvin, and Mark D. Giguere, 167–183 (Medford, N.J.: ASIS, 1994)nAntelman, “Identifying the Serial Work.”nIbid., 249n CONSER Cataloging Manual (Washington, D.C: Library of Congress 2002) Module 21. Modifying Recordsn () International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions UBCIM Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR),
Functional Requirements for Authority Records [draft 2005/06/15]: A Conceptual Model
. n () Cooperative Online Serials Program, CONSER Task Group on Non -
AACR2
Records. (rev. Aug. 2005). n () International Conference on the Principles and Future of the Development of AACR (1997). nDavid Mimno, Gregory Crane, Alison Jones, '“Hierarchical Catalog Records: Implementing a
FRBR
Catalog,”' D-Lib Magazine 11 no. 10 (Oct. 2005): (accessed Dec. 22, 2006)www.dlib.org/dlib/october05/crane/10crane.htmln () Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, Cataloging & Classification Section, Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access, Task Force for Review of “Guidelines for OPAC Displays,”
Report
(Jan. 30, 2004). nMartha M. Yee, '“New Perspectives on the Shared Cataloging Environment and a MARC 21 Shopping List,”' Library Resources & Technical Services 48 (2004): 11-12nJennifer Bowen, '“
FRBR:
Coming Soon to Your Library?”' Library Resources & Technical Services 49 no. 3 (2005): 175-188nIbid., 183nEdgar A. Jones, '“Multiple Versions Revisited,”' Serials Librarian 32 no. 1/2 (1997): 177-198nRick Bennett, Brian F. Lavoie, Edward T. O’Neill, '“The Concept of a Work in WorldCat: An Application of
FRBR
,”' Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical Services 27 no. 1 (2003): 45-59nCoyle, “Future Considerations”; Mimno, Crane, and Jones, “Hierarchical Catalog Records.”nCoyle, “Future Considerations,” 172nTillett, “A Taxonomy of Bibliographic Relationships.”nJones, “Multiple Versions Revisited.”nCoyle, “Future Considerations,” 167nMartha M. Yee, “UCLA Film and Television Archives on Voyager,” e-mail to
FRBR
listserv, July 9, 2004. www.ifla.org/VII/s13/wgfrbr/archive/FRBR_Listserv_Archive.pdfn () Kaplan, “Serial Aggregations”; Michael Kaplan, “Exploring Partnerships: What Can Producers and Vendors Provide?” in
Proceedings of the Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium, Washington, D.C., Nov. 15–17, 2000
, ed. Ann M. Sandberg-Fox, 389–413 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 2001). n () OCLC, FictionFinder. nEdgar A. Jones, '“The
FRBR
Model as Applied to Continuing Resources,”' Library Resources & Technical Services 49 no. 4 (2005): 227-242n () Library of Congress, “Bibliographic Control of Web Resources: A Library of Congress Action Plan” (last updated Feb. 23, 2005). n () Yee, “
FRBR
ization”; Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office,
Displays for Multiple Versions from MARC 21 and FRBR
(Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 2003). nMartha M. Yee, Tschera Harkness Connell Ed., Robert L. Maxwell Ed., '“Lubetzky’s Work Principle”' The Future of Cataloging: Insights from the Lubetzky Symposium, Apr. 18, 1998, University of California Los Angeles (Chicago: ALA 2000): 72-104nInternational Federation of Library Associations and Institutions UBCIM Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR),
Functional Requirements for Authority Records [draft 2005/06/15]nBernhard Eversberg, '“The Part-Whole Relationship in German and American Cataloging Data: Results and Suggestions,”' REUSE+: Joint Project of OCLC and Niedersächsische Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen (: 1998) (accessed Mar. 26, 2007)nCoyle, “Future Considerations,” 168nMartha M. Yee, Jean Weihs Ed., '“What Is a Work?”' The Principles and Future of AACR: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 23–25, 1997 (Chicago: ALA 1998): 62-104n () Barbara B. Tillett, “
FRBR
and Cataloguing Rules: Impact on IFLA’s Statement of Principles and AACR/RDA,” nIbidnIbid., 6nJohn C. Attig, Elaine Svenonius Ed., '“Descriptive Cataloging Rules and Machine-Readable Record Structures: Some Directions for Parallel Development,”' The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Cataloging (San Diego: Academic Press 1989): 135-148 Yee; “What is a Work?”nAttig, “Descriptive Cataloging Rules and Machine-Readable Record Structures: Some Directions for Parallel Development.”nIbidnYee, “What is a Work?”; Martha M. Yee, “Editions: Brainstorming for AACR2000,” in
The Future of the Descriptive Cataloging Rules: Papers from the ALCTS Preconference, AACR2000, American Library Association Annual Conference, Chicago, June 22, 1995
, ed. Brian E.C. Schottlaender, 40–65. ALCTS Papers on Library Technical Services and Collections, no. 6 (Chicago: ALA, 1998)nYee, “What is a Work?,” 96–97n“RLG to Combine with OCLC,” OCLC news release, May 3, 2006. www.oclc.org/news/releases/200618.htmnAttig, “Descriptive Cataloging Rules and Machine-Readable Record Structures.”nBrian E.C. Schottlaender, transcribed by M. Larsgaard, “ AACR2 Complexities, Necessary and Otherwise: The Delsey Report, the Cardinal Principle and (ER) Harmonization,” in
Cataloging the Web: Metadata, AACR and MARC21
, ed. Wayne Jones, Judith R. Ahronheim, and Josephine Crawford, 15–19. ALCTS Papers on Library Technical Services and Collections, no. 10 (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2002)nIbid., 17nInternational Federation of Library Associations and Institutions,
ISBD(ER): International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources
; IFLA,
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Reportn () International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, “IFLAnet Web Site.” n () First International Meeting of Experts for an International Cataloguing Code, July 28–30, 2003, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. nYee, “
FRBR
ization.”nLorcan Dempsey, '“The Recombinant Library: Portals and People,”' Journal of Library Administration 39 no. 4 (2003): 108-109n
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after it has been accepted for publication. Sharing can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
