PRE-CONFERENCE BOOKLET · 2014. 11. 12. · PRE-CONFERENCE BOOKLET Universal Bibliographic Control and International MARC Core Programme ... Museum of Books and Printing Postbox 2149,

PRE-CONFERENCE BOOKLET

Universal Bibliographic Control andInternational MARC Core Programme (UBCIM) and

Division of Bibliographic Control

http://www.ifla.org/VI/3/icnbs/icnbs.htm

2

ICNBS, Copenhagen, 25-27 November 1998Pre-conference Booklet

© 1998 by International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), The Hague, The Netherlands

Edited by Ross Bourne

Cover: The Danish Library Centre as

Published by the Danish Library Centre,Tempovej 7-11, 2750 Ballerup, DenmarkTlf. + 45 44 86 77 77Fax + 45 44 86 78 91E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.dbc.dk

1. edition, 1. impression

Distribution:The Royal Library.The National Library of Denmark. Copenhagen University Library for the Humanities, the Social Sciences, Law and Theology. The DanishMuseum of Books and PrintingPostbox 2149, 1016 Copenhagen K, DenmarkTlf. + 45 33 47 47 47Fax + 45 33 93 22 18E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.kb.dk

Sats: Times New RomanPrinting: Kailow PrintPrinted on 70 g Off-white Offset

ISBN 87-552-2393-1Printed in Denmark 1998

3

CONTENTS

1. International Conference on National Bibliographic Services: introduction, by RossBourne ……………………………………………………………………………….

5

2. UNESCO 1977 recommendations on National Bibliographies …………………….. 7

3. Results of a ”Survey on Bibliographic Control and National Bibliography,IFLA Section on Bibliography”, by Robert P. Holley………………………………..

10

4. Inclusion of Information Covering Electronic Resources in National Bibliographies:Results of a Survey Conducted May-June 1998, by John D. Byrum Jr………………

18

5. National Bibliographic Agencies and the Book Trade, by Ross Bourne ….………… 25

6. The IFLA Section on Cataloguing, by Ingrid Parent ……………………………….. 29

7. Subject retrieval in national bibliographies, by I.C. McIlwaine and Lois May Chanfor the IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing ……….………………………..

31

8. Bibliographic Control Activities in Southeast Asia, by Dahlia Zanial for the IFLASection on Regional Activities: Asia and Oceania……………………………………

37

9. International Bibliographic control as seen from perspective of libraries in SouthernAfrica, by Joseph Chaka Mbirizah for the IFLA Section on Regional Activities:Africa…………………………………………………………………………………

47

10. Harmonizing Bibliographic Control of Serials in the Digital Age, by ReginaRomano Reynolds for the ISSN International Centre………………………………...

51

4

5

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCEON NATIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHICSERVICES - introduction

Ross BourneChair, ICNBS Planning Committee

This conference will provide the firstopportunity for a number of years to discussnational bibliographic services at aninternational level and to influence theirdevelopment. That is not to say, however,that these issues have been ignored in theperiod since the Unesco InternationalCongress on National Bibliographies, whichwas held in Paris in September 1977. Duringthe IFLA conference held in Brighton, UK, in1987 sections of IFLA’s Division ofBibliographic Control pooled the session timeallocated to them in order to review theprogress of the past ten years; the proceedingsof that seminar were published by the UBCIMProgramme in 1988.1 Subsequently, theUBCIM Programme and the Division ofBibliographic Control have been energetic inpromoting national bibliographies at a numberof regional seminars throughout the world, forexample in Bucharest, Kuala Lumpur, Rio deJaneiro and Vilnius. Many papers presented atthe annual IFLA conference and severalsectional projects have also been devoted tothe issues affecting national bibliographies.

ICNBS has been designed to capitalise on theenthusiasm and energies that have beenreleased following the Paris Congress. Butthat enthusiasm would not have been

1 Proceedings of the National BibliographiesSeminar, Brighton, 18 August 1977, held under theauspices of the IFLA Division of BibliograpohicControl / edited by Winston D Roberts. London :IFLA UBCIM Programme, 1988. Copies of theseproceedings are available from the IFLA UBCIMProgramme, whose address is now c/o Die DeutscheBibliothek, Adickesallee 1, D-60322 Frankfurt,Germany; price: DM.15 or GBP.5.

generated without a real need. At least twosets of circumstances have altered the world aswe understood it in 1977: the obvious one is,of course, the development of technology inall its manifestations, whether it be the WorldWide Web, the growth of telecommunications,or the development of desktop computing; butthe other major factor is a global rethinking ofnationhood. This is not just a matter of therebeing more countries following the collapse ofthe Soviet Union, or increased regional co-operation, whether it be amongst the countriesof the European Union or of southern Africa;sub-national groupings are also asserting theiridentity, and a few are even striving forindependence. That debate is for politiciansrather than librarians; bibliographers, however,must be responsive to the problems that mayarise and design systems that can meet thechallenge. Neither should the socio-economicdimension be ignored. As I write, I am onlytoo aware of strife and famine in parts ofAfrica and of the threat of economic collapsein the Far East. We should not forget thatnational bibliographies are to some countriessomething of a luxury.

This conference is intended to be interactive.Participants will be expected to bring a certainamount of knowledge with them and must beprepared not only to listen but also to debatewith open minds. This will not be a showcasefor individual national presentations, howeverinteresting these may be: the presentations thatwill be made will be given from a more generalpoint of view and are intended to provokedebate, not to reinforce the status quo.However, participants may like to be remindedabout some specific areas that may not receiveparticular attention during the course of theconference; this booklet contains therefore anumber of useful background papers thatparticipants are encouraged to read prior tothe conference. Participants should also payspecial attention to the originalrecommendations of the 1977 conference,

6

which are reproduced here by kind permissionof Unesco.

Members of the planning committee andmyself look forward to meeting you inCopenhagen this November. I know that ourDanish colleagues have also planned anexcellent social programme, so while I lookforward to taking part in some heateddiscussions during the day there will be ampleopportunity to get to know one another at apersonal level outside the conference agenda.

UNESCO 1977 recommendations onNational Bibliographies

The International Congress on nationalBibliographies, held at Unesco from 12 to 15September 1977,

Endorsing the concept of UniversalBibliographic Contol (UBC) as a long-termprogramme for the development of a world-wide system for the control and exchange ofbibliographic information,

Emphasizing the need to strengthen nationalbibliographic control as a prerequisite foruniversal bibliographic control,

Recognizing the importance of the nationalbibliography as a major instrument in ensuringnational bibliographic control,

Makes the following recommendations:

Legal deposit

1. Member States should examine existingdesposit legislation and consider theirprovisions in relation to present and futurerequirements in order to develop andmaintain national bibliographic control;and, where necessary, existing legislationshould be revised;

2. Member States currently without legaldeposit should examine the possibilities ofits introduction as a means of strentheningnational bibliographic control

3. New deposit laws, or regulations pursuantto such laws, should state the objective oflegal deposit in relation to the nationalbibliography; should ensure that thedeposit of copies is relevant to therequirements of the national librarysystem; should be comprehensive interminology and wording to includeexisting types og materials withinformation content and others which maybe developed; and should includemeasures for enforcement of the laws;

4. Unesco should draft model legislationwhich serve as a basis for Member Statesin attaining national bibliographic control,and which would take into account therelationship between copyright and legaldeposit;

The selection of materials for the nationalbibliography

5. National bibliographies, as a minimum,should include the records formonographs and first issues and titlechanges of serials, including officialpublications, of the national imprint; andother categories of materials should beincluded as rapidly as possible to meet therequirements of the national librarycommunity and the resources of thenational bibliographic agency. Whennational bibliographic agencies forlinguistic, cultural or other reasons includerecords for publications clearly not part ofthe national imprint, such records shouldbe identified as not belonging to thenational imprint;

6. The national bibliography should includerecords for materials in all the languagesand/or scripts in which publications areproduced within a country; and whereeverpossible these records should be in thelanguages and/or scripts in which thepublications originally appeared;

7. Further study should be undertaken todefine additional categories of materialsand to suggest priorities for their inclusionin the national bibliography;

The presentation and frequency of theprinted national bibliography

8. The printed national bibliography shouldappear as a minimum quarterly with atleast annual cumulations;

9. Each printed issue should conform to thefollowing:- use of an international paper size(recommended A4);

- clear and unambiguous layout andtypography or cover and/or title page toinclude:title of the bibliography;the period which the issue covers;place of publication;name of publisher;date of publication;ISSN in top right-hand corner;

- verso of title page to include:copyright information;cataloguing-in-publication entry;details of availability, price, details ofprinting

- introduction (in each quarterly issue atleast);

- main body of text;

- indicies (cumulated annually) coveringcomplementary arrangements to that ofmain text;

10. In the introduction should be includeddetails stating:the basis for the records, for examlple,records made from copies deposited in thenational library in accordance with legaldeposit stipulations;

coverage, including exceptions;

frequency;

arrangement;

bibliographic and cataloguing tools used;

list of special terms used, with definitionsand abbreviations;

outline of classified arrangement (if used);

outline of transliteration schemes (if used);

description of filing system;

11. The current issues of the printed nationalbibliography should be arranged in aclassified order in accordance with astated internationally-used classificationscheme and the arrangement ofcumulations should be decided at thediscretion of the national bibliographicagency;

Catalogue cards

12. A study should be undertaken of theextent of production of catalogue cards bynational bibliographic agencies and theiruse internationally; and an examinationshould be made of the desirability ofestablishing an international standard forthe physical form of the card;

Contents of the bibliographic record

13. The national bibliographic agency shouldundertake responsibility for preparing thecomprehensive bibliographic records of itsnational imprint and in so doing followinternational cataloguing principles andadopt international numbering systemssuch as ISBN or ISSN; should maintain anauthority control system for nationalnames, personal and corporate, anduniform titles, in accordance withinternational guidelines; and shouldconsider the adoption of aninternationally-used classification schemefor the records;

14. The national bibliographic agency, inanticipation of the introduction of newcataloguing rules, desciptive practices, orsubject approaches, should ensure thattraining courses are provided within thecountry to familiarize the national librarycommunity with the new practices;

15. Specific projects to promote internationalbibliographic standards and guidelinesshould be undertake for authority controlapplicable to both manual and mechanizedsystems; abbreviated and minimumrecords as required, e.g. for CIP;

Publications of intergovernmental andinternational non-governmentalorganizations

16. Intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations shouldintroduce cataloguing-in-publicationschemes in accordance with internationalbibligraphic standards;

17. Intergovernmental organizations shouldco-operate in a joint effort to produce acurrent bibliography of all theirpublications;

Information systems

18. Studies should be made of the utilizationof records produced for nationalbibliographies as national input toinformation systems, and vice versa;

19. Greater efforts at national andinternational levels should be made toensure compatibility between thebibliographic exchange formats of thelibrary and information communities;

The International Serials Data System(ISDS)

20. Member States should establish nationaland/or regional centres for ISDS, ifpossible within the national bibliographicagency;

21. A study should be made of theinterrelationship of the ISDS register andthe serial records of nationalbibliographies and the results should betaken into account in the revision of theISDS Guidelines.

Resource sharing

22. Studies should be made into issuingmultinational bibliographies in areas wherefor any reason it is not feasible at presentto publish national bibliographies and/orwhere there are some geographical,

linguistic or cultural links;

23. Unesco and other appropriate institutionsshould be asked to assist in theestablishment of pilot schemes for nationalbibliographic agencies, or in theproduction of national bibliographies, andin the organization of national, regional orinternational seminars and trainingworkshops for these.

10

Results of a "Survey onBibliographic Control and NationalBibliography, IFLA Section onBibliography"

Robert P. Holley,Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan,United States

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a surveyon bibliographic control and nationalbibliography that was sent out in 1996 tomembers of the Conference of Directors ofNational Libraries. All parts of the worldare represented by the 64 valid responses(52%). National agencies continue toprovide the highest degree of bibliographiccontrol to print formats and to distribute theresulting national bibliography in print.New formats such as computer tape, CD-ROM, and floppy disk are becoming morepopular, and many agencies plan to addthese formats within the next two years.Internet access is increasingly available.Second and Third World agencies aremaking increasing use of computertechnology.

The following paper presents preliminaryresults of a survey on bibliographic controland national bibliography. As a member ofthe Section on Bibliography, I proposed thisproject at the 1995 IFLA Annual Conferencein Istanbul, Turkey. With the support of theSection Standing Committee and itsChairperson, Ross Bourne, IFLA provided asmall grant to prepare and mail this survey. Ithank IFLA for this support.

The survey and its distribution

I developed the survey with several goals inmind:

• To determine the extent of bibliographiccontrol by national agencies including theirchoice of bibliographic control standards andthe creation of machine readable records;

• To discover whether the agency responsiblefor bibliographic control also produced anational bibliography including its format,frequency, and cumulation patterns;

• To ask about the existence and success oflegal deposit in each country;

• To determine whether national bibliographicrecords were available online;

• To determine the reasons why thebibliographic agency prepared a nationalbibliography;

• To ask about major changes in the nationalbibliography during the last two years and toask about plans for changes in content andformat of the national bibliography during thenext two years.

My main hypothesis was the nationalbibliographic agencies, at least in the developedworld, were changing from print andmicroformats to various online and machinereadable formats including Internet access. Ialso hoped to find some evidence that ThirdWorld countries were taking advantage of thenew technologies to enhance access to theirpublishing output and perhaps to speed up theproduction of the national bibliography as a toolfor acquisitions. Especially in Third Worldcountries, often by the time the nationalbibliography became available, the publicationswere no longer in print.I developed the survey instrument to answer thequestions given above. Wherever possible,respondents could check off the appropriateanswers. Some questions had space for atextual response where more than a limitednumber of possible answers existed or wherecomments were appropriate. The last page ofthe twelve page questionnaire included space foradditional comments. While the survey itselfwas in English, the accompanying cover letterwas in both English and French. I had thesurvey and cover letter reviewed by a colleague,

11

Dr. Ronald Powell, who is an expert insurvey methodology, and by selectedmembers of the Section’s StandingCommittee. I incorporated their suggestedchanges in the final version.

From a mailing list provided by IFLA, Idistributed the survey to the members of theConference of Directors of National Librariesexcept for the observers who are notconnected with national libraries. On 10January 1996, I mailed out 123 surveys withinstructions to return the survey by 1 April1996 if possible. I encouraged participantsto get in touch with me by mail, telephone,telefacsimile, or email if they had anyquestions. I also gave participants thepossibility of asking for a machine readableversion of the survey via the Internet. Fiveagencies, including two agencies in theSecond World, took advantage of this optionand submitted their responses by email or filetransfer.

The response rate

I received a total of 66 responses from 63countries or regions. (See Table 1 for acomplete list of respondents arranged by thestatus of their economic development andthen by continent.) Denmark and Swedensent multiple responses because more thanone agency is responsible for bibliographiccontrol. I had duplicate responses from theBiblioteca Nacional in Spain, but tabulatedonly the most comprehensive response. Icounted Wales and Scotland as separate fromthe United Kingdom because of their regionalresponsibilities. Mongolia sent a responsethat the State Public Library was not able toanswer the questions. Useable responsestherefore totaled 64 for a return rate of 52%.

The response rate by geographic area is asfollows:Africa 8 12.5%Asia 14 21.8%

Europe 32 50.0%North America 6 9.4%Pacific Ocean 1 1.6%South America 3 4.7%The response rate by level of economicdevelopment1 and geographic area is as follows:Economically Developed Nations 26 40.6%Asia 3Europe 20North America 2Pacific Ocean 1Former Members of the Soviet Bloc

12 18.8%Europe 12Third World Countries 26 40.6%Africa 8Asia 11North America 4South America 3

For a survey whose goal was to get additionalinformation from the developing nations, theresponse rate from this group was quite goodand shows, I believe, their commitment tobibliographic control and their support of IFLAactivities.

Quality of the data

At the outset, I will say that the quality of thedata did not meet my expectations. This factorlimits the conclusions that can be legitimatelydrawn from the responses. I thank all therespondents who took time from theirprofessional duties to respond to thisquestionnaire and in no way intend the followingcomments to criticize any national bibliographicagency who responded to the survey. I believethat the following elements made it difficult toget accurate, consistent data.

1. Complexity of the SubjectBibliographic control and national bibliographyis a complex subject. I based the survey uponthe bibliographic control and publishingconventions that were familiar to me but thatmay not have accurately reflected the same

12

conventions in other parts of the world.Furthermore, many respondents includedcomments that indicated the existence ofmultiple national bibliographies for differentformats and time periods while my surveymay have made the implicit assumption thateach agency published a singlecomprehensive national bibliography.

2. Lack of Data on the Part of theRespondentsI should have realized that some of the mostimportant questions such as the percentageof bibliographiccoverage and of materials available throughlegal deposit were difficult if not impossibleto answer because the respondents did notacquire or list these materials preciselybecause they were unknown. "Don’t KnowPercent" was the response most often chosenfor these two questions.

3. Faults in the InstrumentAfter analyzing the results, I believe that thesurvey tried to do too much. While theSection on Bibliography was particularlyinterested in recent and proposed changes,this part of the survey did not probe deeplyenough. Nonetheless, given the complexityof the subject of national bibliography, it mayhave been impossible to have gathered thenecessary information without an interviewwith each respondent. At 12 pages, thesurvey may have already been too long.

The question on the intended uses of nationalbibliography asked respondents to "pleaserank the following 5 reasons from 1-5"without making explicit my assumption thatthe respondents should not reuse anynumber.

Finally, I now realize that the best strategywould have been to include versions of thesurvey in all official IFLA languages. Thisfactor may explain the somewhat lowresponse rate from Spanish-speaking

Table 1: Survey Respondent by EconomicDevelopment and Continent

Economically Developed Nations (“First World”)Israel Jewish Nat. & Univ. Libr. AsiaJapan National Diet Library AsiaQatar National Library AsiaDenmark Danish Library Centre EuropeDenmark Royal Library EuropeFinland National Library EuropeFrance Bibliothèque Nationale EuropeGermany Deutsche Bibliothek EuropeGreece National Library EuropeIceland National & Univ. Library EuropeItaly Biblioteca Nacional EuropeLiectenstein Landesbibliothek EuropeMalta National Library EuropeNetherlands Koninklijke Bibliotheek EuropeNorway Nasjonalbiblioteket EuropePortugal Biblioteca Nacional EuropeScotland National Library EuropeSpain Biblioteca Nacional EuropeSweden Arkivet för lind och bild EuropeSweden National Library EuropeSwitzerland National Library EuropeUnited Kingdom British Library EuropeWales National Library EuropeCanada National Library North AmericaUnited States Library of Congress North AmericaNew Zealand National Library Pacific Ocean

Former Members of the Soviet Bloc ( “Second World”)Mongolia State Central Library AsiaBulgaria National Library EuropeEstonia National Library EuropeHungary National Széchény Library EuropeLatvia National Library EuropeLithuania National Library EuropeMacedonia Narodna i univerzitetska bibl. EuropePoland Biblioteka Narodowa EuropeRomania Biblioteca Nationala EuropeRussia National Library EuropeSerbia National Library EuropeSlovakia Slovak National Library EuropeSlovenia National Library Europe

Developing Nations (“Third Wordl”)Botswana National Library Service AfricaBurundi Bibliothèque Nationale AfricaKenya National Library AfricaMadagascar National Library AfricaMalawi National Archives AfricaMali Bibliothèque Nationale AfricaSouth Africa State Library AfricaTanzania National Bibl. Agency AfricaIndia Central Reference Library AsiaIran National Library AsiaKorea National Library AsiaLaos National Library AsiaMalaysia National Library AsiaPakistan National Library AsiaSingapore National Library Board AsiaSri Lanka National Library AsiaSyria Assad National Library AsiaThailand National Library AsiaTurkey National Library AsiaCuba Biblioteca Nationale José Marti North AmericaHaiti Bibliothèque Nationale North AmericaJamaica National Library North AmericaMexico Biblioteca Nacional North AmericaBrazil Biblioteca Nacional South AmericaChile Biblioteca Nacional South AmericaPeru Biblioteca Nacional South America

countries. Such a multiple language version,however, was beyond my capabilities as aresearcher.

13

Survey results

Notwithstanding the comments given above,I believe that the survey provided meaningfulconclusions or, at a minimum, reasonableindications in several areas.

1. The types of materials for which theagency attempts to provide bibliographiccontrolOut of 64 valid responses, the following tablegives the number and percentage of thoseagencies that gave a "yes" answer for eachtype of material.Books 62 96.9%Serials 60 93.8%Official Publications of Your Government

56 87.5%Conference Proceedings 55 85.9%Textbooks 52 81.3%Materials about the Country Published Abroad

46 71.9%Maps 45 70.3%Dissertations 44 68.8%Pamphlets 43 67.2%Music 42 65.6%Sound Recordings 35 54.7%Periodical Articles 33 51.6%Graphic Materials 31 48.4%Microforms 30 46.9%Motion Pictures & Video Recordings 26 40.6%Computer Files & Software 20 31.3%International Government Publications19 29.7%

These results show the emphasis upon thebibliographic control of traditional textformats. The number of agencies thatprovide bibliographic control for materialspublished abroad about the country and forperiodical articles is higher than I would haveexpected.

The survey included the opportunity to addadditional categories that were not includedin the list above. Twenty agencies did so; thecategories with more than one response were

manuscripts and braille, each with fourresponses.

2. Bibliographic Control Standards andMachine Readable RecordsThe Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules is themost used cataloging code with 33 users (55%)out of the 60 agencies that responded. Inaddition, 4 other agencies (6.7%) replied thatthey used a local cataloging code based uponAACR-II. Use of the ISBD (InternationalStandard Bibliographic Description) rules camein second with 4 users (6.7%). The use ofAACR-II is not limited to the English speakingcommunity2 and has wide geographicdistribution (Asia--12; Africa--5; Europe--8 plus3 modified; North America--4 plus 1 modified;Pacific Ocean--1; and South America--3).

The two major decimal classifications are evenmore dominant among the 61 agencies thatreport using classification in their bibliographicrecords. The Dewey Decimal Classification(DDC) is used as the major classification systemby 30 agencies (49.2%); it is a secondaryclassification scheme for two others. Fouragencies (6.6%) reporting using a local versionof DDC. The Universal Decimal Classification(UDC) came in second with 16 agencies(26.2%) including one local version. Threeagencies (4.9%) used Library of CongressClassification while four agencies (6.6%) reporta local system or varied systems without furtherdetail.

Subject access is more difficult to describe. Ofthe 52 agencies, five agencies (9.6%) respondedappropriately that they used classification toprovide subject access though this is a duplicateanswer to the last question. Somewhat to mysurprise, 15 agencies (28.8%) reported usingLibrary of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)plus four other agencies (7.7%) said that theirsystem was based upon LCSH. Nine agencies(17.3%) said that they used local subjectheadings without giving further details. Twoagencies (3.8%) used thesauri; one (1.9%) used

14

Sears Subject Headings; and one (1.9%)used chain indexing. The rest reported alocal system without further precision orindicated they provided subject access onlyfor limited areas such as biography andgeographic areas. Any future survey orexamination of national bibliographies shouldask for more detailed information in the areaof subject access.

Of the 63 agencies that responded, 48(76.2%) said that they created machinereadable records as part of the bibliographiccontrol process. Of the 15 (23.8%) that saidthey did not, 9 planned to do so within thenext two years. The remaining six agencieswith no plans for machine readable recordswere all Third World countries (three inAfrica and three in Asia). When asked aboutthe specific machine readable format, sevenresponded MARC without any further detailon the exact version. Seven agencies useUNIMARC; seven US MARC, and two UKMARC. Interestingly, the agency in onecountry, Lithuania, reported that it usedProcite, a software program designed tocreate bibliographic citations for researchpapers.

3. National BibliographyWhen asked whether their institutionproduced a national bibliography, 61agencies responded yes; and one respondedno. The Library of Congress in United Statesgave the nuanced answer that it does nottechnically produce a national bibliographybut does provide bibliographic control fornational imprints. (Responses from theUnited States are included in the tabulations.)When asked whether the nationalbibliography included all the materials thatthe agency brought under bibliographiccontrol, 42 agencies (67.7%) said yes; and 20(32.3%) responded no. Without going intogreat detail, the agencies normally excludedspecialized materials and newer formats fromthe national bibliography.

TABLE II Format for National Bibliography

Country Print Microfiche Computer Floppy CD-ROMTape Disk

Botswana yBrazil y y y yBulgaria y yCanada y yChile yCuba y yDenmark y y y yDenmark y y yEstonia y yFinland y y yFrance y y y yGermany y y y yGreece yHaiti yHungary y y y yIceland y yIndia yIran yIsrael yItaly y y y yJamaica yJapan y y yKenya yKorea y yLaos yLatvia y y yLiechtenstein yLithuania y yMacedonia y yMadagascar y yMalawi yMalaysia y yMali y yMalta yMexico y y yNetherlands y yNew Zealand y yNorway y y y yPakistan yPeru y yPoland y y yPortugal yQatar yRomania y yRussia y ?Scotland y ySingapore y y ySlovakia y y ySlovenia y y ySouth Africa y y ySpain y y y ySri Lanka ySweden ySweden y ySwitzerland ySyria yTanzania yThailand yTurkey yUnited Kingdom y y y yUnited States y y yWales y

Determining whether the format for nationalbibliographies had changed since previousstudies of national bibliography was one of thekey questions for this survey.

Table II gives the distribution formats for all theagencies that produce a national bibliography.

15

Print remains the preferred format with 56agencies (90.3%) providing a printed versionof the national bibliography. CD-ROM is thenext most preferred format with 27 agencies(43.5%). The remaining distribution formatsare: computer tape--17 agencies (27.4%);floppy disk--16 agencies (25.8%), andmicrofiche--12 agencies (19.4%). Whileother formats were given as choices as wellas the opportunity for the agency to write inadditional formats, these were the only onesthat were chosen. As Table II shows, manyagencies distribute their national bibliographyin multiple formats. I am encouraged by thissection because many Second and ThirdWorld countries have taken advantage of thenew computer formats: 7 out 17 respondentsfor computer tape (41.2%), 11 out of 16 forfloppy disk (68.8%), and 9 out of 27 for CD-ROM (33.3%). A detailed analysis of publicfrequency and cumulation patterns is beyondthe scope of this preliminary analysis. Iwould note that 13 (21.7%) out of the 60reporting agencies responded that they didnot provide any cumulations of their nationalbibliographies.

When asked about legal deposit, 59 (92.2%)out of 64 reporting agencies reported that itexisted in their country. In the commentssection, several agencies reported attempts tostrengthen legal deposit in their countries totake into account technological changes andnew publishing patterns.

The next section asked questions about"national records as an online resource." 43agencies (68.3%) provide some type ofonline access, and 20 (31.7%) do not. Of theeconomically developed countries, 22(84.6%) provide online access and 4 (15.4%)do not. Among former Soviet bloc members,9 (75%) do and 3 (25%) do not. AmongThird World countries, 12 (48%) do and 13(52%) do not. As with the distributionformats, I am encouraged that the figures foronline access for agencies outside the

developed countries is as high as it is. Of the 43agencies that provide online access, 22 (51.2%)answered "yes" to the question: "Does thisaccess include materials published in yourcountry but not owned by your agency?"

Table III provides information on the ways inwhich online records are available. (Malianswered "yes" to the availability question butdid not give details.) Of particular interest isthat 29 agencies (46% of those answering thisquestion) provide Internet access including 3agencies in the former Soviet bloc and 8 in theThird World.

Table IV tabulates responses to the question onthe intended uses of national bibliography. Iexpected that the answers should be forcedranked from 1-5 in priority order, but myinstructions were not clear enough so that someagencies reused the same priority number.Nonetheless, the results are quite clear evenwith these statistical flaws. The most importantintended use for all respondents and for allcategories according to economic developmentwas "to record materials published in ourcountry" at 4.75 for the group as a whole. TheSecond World agencies gave this response aperfect score of 5. The second most importantreason at 3.51 for the combined group was "toprovide bibliographic data for other agencies tocatalog or to bibliographically control materialspublished in our country." The more self-serving reason on the list, "to help libraries andother agencies identify materials published inour country that they wish to buy," came inthird for the combined group (2.87) as well asfor the developed nations (2.92) and the ThirdWorld (3.00). It came in last for the SecondWorld (2.44). "To share our bibliographic datawith other agencies" came in fourth for thecombined group (2.61), the developed nations(2.29) and the Third World (2.55). This reasonwas significantly more important for the SecondWorld (3.5), but this is due in part to higheraverage scores for this group because of its

16

TABLE III Availability of Online Records

1 From computer terminals within our agency for the staff2 From computer terminals within our agency for the public3 Other agencies that have direct (hard wired) connections4 Dial in access through direct telephone connections5 Dial in access through computer to computer connections6 Access through the Internet

Country 1 2 3 4 5 6Brazil y y y y y yBulgaria yCanada y y y y yChile y y y yDenmark y y y y yDenmark y y y y y yFrance y y yGermany y y yHungary y y yIceland y y yIsrael y y y y y yItaly y y yJamaica y yJapan y yKorea y y yLiechtenstein y y y yLithuania yMacedonia y y y y yMalaysia y y y y yMali No details reported

Mexico y y y yNew Zealand y y y y y yNorway y y y y y yPeru yPoland y yPortugal y y y y y yRomania y y yScotland y y ySerbia y y y y ySingapore y y y y y ySlovakia y y y ySlovenia y y y ySouth Africa y y y ySpain y y y ySweden y y y ySweden y y y y y ySwitzerland y y y y y yThailand y y yTurkey y y y yUnited Kingdom y y y yUnited States y y y y yWales y y y

reuse of higher priorities. Finally, "to furtherthe aim of universal bibliographic control asformulated by IFLA" came in last, even in anIFLA survey, with 2.23 for the combinedgroup, 2.17 for the developed nations, and1.95 for the Third World. Only for theSecond World did it score higher at 3.00 tocome in fourth. In conclusion, these answersreaffirmed the high importance of nationalbibliography as the national memory of eachcountry’s intellectual production.

The final two sections on "recent changes"and "future plans" provide some sense ofdevelopments in national bibliography. 34

agencies (56.7%) indicated that they had madechanges in the national bibliography during thelast two years while 26 (43.3%) did not. Thesechanges are too diverse and lacking in detail totabulate, but some examples are the move toCD-ROM publication and the inclusion of newformats such as e-journals. Many agenciesindicated changes in scope, coverage,arrangement, and indexes without giving details.

I analyzed plans for future changes separatelyaccording to content and distribution format.28 agencies (43.8% of valid returns) said thatthey planned to revise the content of thenational bibliography. 20 agencies (31.3%) saidthat they planned to add various formats in boththe traditional and new formats. Two agencies(3.1%) planned to eliminate various formats.The National Library of Russia said that itplanned to eliminate production of a nationalbibliography. Overall, plans included bringingmore items under bibliographic control.

35 agencies (54.7% of valid returns) replied thatthey planned to make changes in distribution.Most planned to add machine readable formats.While not all agencies gave details on theseformats, 15 (42.9% of those planning changes)said that they were considering CD-ROM; 6(17.1%) were considering floppy disk; one(2.9%) was considering computer tape; and 17(48.6%) were considering various forms ofonline access including 7 (20%) agencies thatexplicitly mentioned Internet access.Surprisingly, 3 agencies (8.6%) planned to addmicroformats. As for deletions, 2 agencies(5.7%) planned to eliminate printed products forat least some types of materials while 2 (5.7%)planned to do the same for microform versions.Planned changes toward machine readableproducts were particularly noticeable in SecondWorld countries (8 agencies) and Third Worldcountries (13 agencies).

17

Table IV: Intended Uses of NationalBibliography

1 To record materials published in our country2 To provide bibliographic data for other agencies to catalog or to

bibliographically control materials published in our country3 To share our bibliographic data with other agencies4 To help libraries and other agencies identify materials published in

our country that they wish to buy5 To further the aim of universal bibliographic control as formulated by

IFLA

1 2 3 4 5All Agencies

Total Weighted Votes 261 193 141 152 118Count 55 55 54 53 53Average (5=most important) 4.75 3.51 2.61 2.87 2.23

Developed Nations


Second World


Third World


NOTE: As was explained in the text, agencies did not always follow theimplied instructions to rank order their voting. This table reflectsvotes as cast by all agencies even when multiple occurrences of thesame ranking number was used. For the weighted votes, the highestpriority response received 5 points, the second 4, the third 3, thefourth 2, and the fifth 1.

Conclusions

I believe that this analysis of the surveyjustifies the following conclusions:• National libraries remain committed to

national bibliographic control and nationalbibliography as shown by the responserate to the survey (52%) and the almostunanimous commitment to producing anational bibliography.

• The traditional printed formats have thegreatest probability of being underbibliographic control. Non-print formatshave the least probability.

• In the area of standards for bibliographiccontrol, AACR-II for cataloging, DDCfollowed by UDC for classification, andLCSH for subject access are the mostwidely used. Thus, Anglo-American

cataloging traditions have a high degree ofinternational acceptance, even in non-Englishspeaking countries.

• A strong majority, 76.2%, created machinereadable bibliographic records. Close to thesame percent, 68.3%, provide online accessincluding 29 agencies (46.0%) whose recordsare available through the Internet.

• Most agencies (92.2%) acquire materialsthrough legal deposit, but several commentedon the need to strengthen legal deposit totake into account technological changes andnew publishing patterns.

• Print remains the preferred format fornational bibliography (56 agencies), but CD-ROM is second (27 agencies). During thenext two years, many agencies areconsidering adding a CD-ROM as a formatfor national bibliography (15 agencies) andproviding various forms of online access (17agencies).

• The most important reasons that agenciesproduce a national bibliography is "to recordmaterials published in [their] country."

• Second and Third World countries aremaking increasing use of computertechnology to create machine readablerecords, to publish their nationalbibliographies in a machine readable formats,and to provide online access to theirbibliographic records.

Notes1To determine correct placement for levels ofeconomic development, I used "Appendix A: TheDeveloping Countries, Regional Groupings" (pp.141-143) in Stephan Haggard, Developing Nationsand the Politics of Global Integration (Washington:Brookings Institution, 1995).

2English is not the official language or the languageof the former colonial power in the followingcountries whose bibliographic control agencies saidthat they use AACR-II: Brazil, Chile, Denmark,Greece, Iran, Laos, Mexico, Peru, Romania,Slovakia, Syria, Thailand, and Turkey

18

Inclusion of Information CoveringElectronic Resources in NationalBibliographies: Results of aSurvey Conducted May-June 1998

Preliminary Report Prepared for the InternationalConference on National BibliographiesCopenhagen, Denmark, November 25-27, 1998

ByJohn D. Byrum, Jr.Chief, Regional and CooperativeCatalogingLibrary of CongressWashington, D. C. 20540-4380 U.S.A.(Internet: [email protected])

With the Assistance ofPatricia Myers-HayerSenior CatalogerLibrary of Congress

Introduction

In early summer 1998, questionnaires weresent to the membership of the Conferenceof Directors of National Libraries (CDNL)to solicit information regarding inclusion ofinformation for electronic resources innational bibliographies. The purpose of thisSurvey was three-fold:

(1) To establish the extent to whichcoverage was now being provided forthis recent and increasingly importantmaterial and the extent to which greaterattention to electronic resources wasintended for the near future.

(2) To ascertain the nature of thecataloguing conventions - rules,standards, and local practices - beingfollowed in representing entries forelectronic materials in cases whereNational Bibliographic Agencies

(NBAs) are providing coverage.

(3) To determine how NBAs are dealing,in particular, with remote accesselectronic resources, such as materialsavailable on the INTERNET and toascertain what solutions they haveinstituted to meet the unique problemsof such entities.

A large number of institutions, totaling 55,replied to the questionnaire, providing inputfrom National Bibliographic Agencies fromAlbania, Armenia, Australia, Austria,Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia,Czech Republic, Denmark1, Estonia,Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain,Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan,Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Macedonia,Madagascar and Malawi, Maldives, Malta,Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, NewZealand, Norway, New Guinea, Peru,Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania,Russia, Scotland, Singapore, SlovakRepublic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Tunisia,Wales, United States. As a result,participation is world-wide in nature,although regions are not representedequally: 2 replies from North America; 4from Central and Latin America; 18 fromWestern Europe; 12 from Eastern Europe;2 from the Middle East; 5 from Africa; 9from Asia and Indian/Pacific Oceancountries.

The report which follows represents thefirst (and therefore preliminary) analysis ofthe Survey results. A fuller, more analyticversion is being developed for presentationat a Workshop to be held by the IFLASection on Bibliography at the 1999Annual Conference in Bangkok, Thailand.

19

Coverage

In revealing coverage for electronicresources, the Survey provided respondentswith a broad definition for the medium:

Electronic resources are those materialsencoded for manipulation by a computer,basically comprising "data" and/or"programs". "Data" includes text (e.g.books, journal, articles, both issuedelectronically and electronically digitized),numeric data, representational data, while"programs" include database programs,desktop publishing programs, wordprocessor programs, systems programs,other electronic application programs, etc. For the purpose of the Survey, electronicresources were divided by format into thefollowing categories: Electronic resourceson optical discs, including CD Roms,Photo Cds, et; Electronic resources ondisk(ette)s; Electronic resources onmagnetic tape; and Remote electronicresources, such as those on the Internetand/or World Wide Web, and onlineservices. In addition, InteractiveMultimedia, which combines mediaresiding in one more physical carriers, wasincluded as a category.

Within this scope of this definition, 39respondents indicated current coverage ofat least one type of electronic resources,while 34 included entries for two categoriesand others for several types.

Below is given more detailed informationregarding the extent to which the differentkinds of electronic materials are now beingincluded in national bibliographies:

Table 1

Category of ElectronicMaterial

No. of NBAs reportingcoverage

Material on optical discs 34

Material on disk(ette)s 39

Material on magnetic tape 09

Remote resources 17

Interactive Multimedia 22

Regarding each category of material,respondents were asked to report the dateat which coverage began and approximatenumber of bibliographic entries for thelatest issue of your national bibliography.The information in Table 2 reflects repliesoverall, giving a general impression, withreplies falling outside the "norm" notincluded:

Table 2

Category of ElectronicMaterial

Coveragebegan

No. ofentries (latest

issue)

Material on optical discs Late 1980 300

Material on disk(ette)s Late 1980s 100

Material on magnetic tape 1980s 100 or less

Remote resources Mid-1990s 100-200

Interactive Multimedia Mid-1990s 100-300

Thus, it appears that those nationalbibliographies including electronicresources began to do so in the mid- to late1990’s, in some cases expanding coverageto include remote access and interactivemultimedia in the mid-1990s. In the usualcase, the quantity of titles included in thelatest issue is still modest.

Electronic material can take on a variety ofmanifestations in terms of kind ofpublications they manifest. The Surveyrevealed that national bibliographies

20

providing coverage produce entries whichfully reflect the gamut of possibilities:

Table 3

Kind of publication represented Number of NBAs reportingcoverage

Serials (e.g. journals) 27

Texts (e.g. books) 32

Directories & databases 27

Bulletin Boards & discussionlists

28

Digital reproductions 11

Online services 5

Web sites 6

Programs (e.g.,word processors,games, desktop publishing)

14

Respondents were asked to indicate thesource(s) by which they acquire theelectronic material they covered in theirnational bibliography. Their replies revealeda mixture of acquisitions strategies,including purchases (18 NBAs),gift/exchanges (20 NBAs), but mostimportantly, legal deposit (27). Regardingthe latter, it was clear from replies that,where updated to cover electronicresources, legal deposit requirements havebeen changed only recently, and in severalnations such changes are still in draft. As aresult, instances were reported where theelectronic versions might be subject todeposit arrangements more of a voluntarythan legal nature and were negotiated on acase-by-case basis with publishers. Alsoreported were arrangements that involvedreturning material to publishers afterbibliographic entries are prepared.

Of those already providing coverage forelectronic materials in their nationalbibliographies, 28 reported that they willexpand coverage of electronic materials in

the future. Expansion could occur as aresult of including a greater number ofitems for categories of resources alreadycovered, initiating coverage for categoriesnot currently within scope, or both. Onecategory mentioned frequently in thisregard was remote access material relatingto the nation, while more than onereporting NBA cited digital videodiscs(DVDs) as another likely candidate. Mostrespondents expecting to increase coveragestipulated increased coverage of moretraditional formats, however. In severalcases, anticipated changes in legal depositrequirements were cited as governing thenature and size of increased representationof these materials in national bibliographies.Most anticipating an opportunity toincrease coverage of electronic materialindicated that such expansion would occurvery soon - as early as mid- to late 1998, orwithin 1999 or 2000.

Of those NBAs replying to the Surveywhich currently do not provide coverageany electronic materials, most (14) areplanning to initiate some kind of activity inthis area in the near future. (Within thisgroup, however, some indicate that theyencounter electronic materials issued asaccompanying material for printedpublications; when this happens theseNBAs provide for the electroniccomponent within the bibliographic entryfor the host document). A large number ofrespondents from national bibliographicagencies in developing nations were amongthose which do not yet cover electronicmaterials but plan to do so soon, althoughsurprisingly there were also someprominent Western European countries stillin the "planning for coverage" phase. Inmany instances, those anticipatingexpansion of national bibliographies toinclude electronic resources directly link it

21

to revision of requirements to extend legaldeposit to add one or more types ofelectronic material.

Policies for Bibliographic Description

The respondents providing coverage forone or more types of electronic materialswere asked a series of questions intendedto establish the cataloguing practices andpolicies used for the bibliographicdescriptions to appear in their nationalbibliographies. Most reported that theirstaff follow the national cataloguing rules,with 19 indicating that their descriptivepolicies are based on the Anglo-AmericanCataloguing Rules, Second Edition, eitherthe English text, a translation of it, or anadaptation. Also used are the CONSERCataloging Manual: Module 31, whichcovers descriptive cataloguing of remoteaccess computer files.

Respondents from Australia, Austria,Estonia, Denmark, France, Germany,Korea, Peru, Singapore, Slovak, Sweden,Switzerland and Tunisia reported that theirnational cataloguing rules have beenrevised to incorporate more up-to-dateprovisions covering electronic materials,such as those presented in the recentlyissued International StandardBibliographic for Electronic Resources(ISBD(ER))2. In Armenia, Czechoslovakia,Finland, Hungry, Mexico, the Netherlands,New Zealand, Norway, and Russia,projects to revise national rules werereported as having begun; in mostinstances, these too will base changes onthe provisions of ISBD(ER). Revision ofAACR2 was initiated with the appointmentin early 1998 of a task force by theAmerican Library Association’s Committeeon Cataloging: Description and Access torecommend amendments to incorporate

features of (ER), but the rule revisionprocess is labor intensive and publication ofapproved revisions is not likely until 2000or later. In other cases, staff at the NBAsare using ISBD(ER) in conjunction withexisting national rules or AACR2. In all buta few cases, respondents felt that thecataloguing rules used in-house providedadequate guidance for preparation ofbibliographic entries for electronicmaterials.

Bibliographic descriptions for electronicresources may be shorter, fuller, or aboutthe same as those for other materials,depending on the rules and policiesfollowed by the NBA. When asked forinformation regarding their practices, noneof the respondents indicated that their staffwere producing briefer records for thesematerials, while nine reported that theirentries were more extensive due to thetechnical features of the medium whichthey include in descriptions for them. Thevast majority, however, felt thatbibliographic entries for electronicresources were more or less the same asthose for other publications, noting that thelevel of cataloguing is the same regardlessof the physical format.

Given the intangible nature of electronicpublications, where the content is usuallynot accessible without machinemanipulation, the Survey sought to learnthe sources of information used by staff atNBAs for the entries they devised. Table 4reveals the response to this inquiry, withmost replies indicating use of more thanone approach to obtain the necessaryinformation.

22

Table 4

Source(s) of information used fordescriptive entries

Number of NBAsreporting

From information within the materialitself

33

Through examination of material on theInternet

12

From information supplied bypublishers

22

From Dublin Core metadata suppliedby the creator

5

As with most other kinds of non-bookpublications, users of nationalbibliographies often expect to be alerted tothe nature of the format when encounteringentries for electronic materials. Suchnotification can be handled in a variety ofways - by including within the bibliographicdescription the General MaterialDesignation and/or Specific MaterialDesignation or by giving the information ina note; in the case of the machine-readableversion of the national bibliography, thisinformation can also be conveyed by givinga code or tag in the fixed field portion ofappropriate records. When asked toindicate the techniques their nationalbibliographies employed to alert users toelectronic materials, respondents revealedmultiple approaches in most cases, asindicated in Table 5.

Table 5

Identification technique used No. of respondentsreporting use

Giving General MaterialDesignation

25

Giving Special MaterialDesignation

24

Giving information in notes 20

Giving code or tag 21

Remote Access Electronic Resources

Because of the proliferation of electronicdocuments on the World Wide Web andthrough the Internet, a recent developmentwhich introduced many new bibliographicand other related problems, the Surveyincluded a series of questions intended tofocus on materials available through remoteaccess. As Table 1 above indicates, 17national bibliographic agencies reportcoverage of such materials; however, only14 of these supplied information withregard to these specific questions. As forfuture coverage of remote access electronicresources in particular, nearly 20 NBAsindicated decisions to do so or are seriouslyexploring the possibility.

First, respondents were asked to advise asto whether their national bibliographiesprovide separate entries for remote accessresources which are the same or similar tomaterial in another format, e.g. as a printedpublication. Almost all reporting NBAsreplied to this question in the affirmative,thereby establishing a preference forseparate bibliographic entries for variousmanifestations of the publication. In onecase, the respondent indicated that aUniversal Resource Locator (URL) isadded as a note to the bibliographic entriesfor printed publications in lieu of separatebibliographic entries, while in two othercases, respondents indicated that a separateentry is originated but the entry for theother version is amended to include theappropriate URL to link it to the electronicversion.3

Next, respondents were queried as towhether their cataloguing staff encounteredparticular difficulty in ascertaining any ofthe data elements to be included in

23

descriptions for remote access works.Several replied in the affirmative, citingespecially (1) determination of the chiefsource of information to be used for thedescription; (2) "imprint" information, suchas place and date of "publication"; (3)dealing with differences which affect theappearance of the publication depending onparticular format (e.g. PDF, HTML); (4)discovery of the title proper, giving avariety of titles to choose from among inthe case of many remote accesspublications; (5) identification of editions,given dynamic nature of remote material;(5) lack of numbering for remote versionsof serials, which are often more in thenature of data base. For the most part, the"fluidity" of remote access materials resultsin cataloguers’ difficulties in describingthem.

In particular, information regarding theURLs for electronic publications wasconsidered subject to change and thereforemore likely to be unreliable in terms of adata element within the bibliographicrecord. Nevertheless, all respondentsreported that such information is routinelygiven in the case of remote access material.(In some cases where the nationalbibliography is available in machine-readable form, mention was made of "hotlinks" by which users might access thematerial directly from the URL in thebibliographic record). But, because of thehighly labor intensive nature of cataloguemaintenance work, only two respondentsindicated a policy to continuously monitorthe reliability of URL information, althougha few cited the possibility of utilizingprogrammatic approaches to the task whichare now under development. Othersreported that they might update this dataelement if necessary when encountered orwhen the issue was brought to attention by

way of "error reports" from publishers, thepublic or staff. Research Projects and Investigations

The Survey concluded by invitingrespondents to indicate research in whichstaff of the NBA might be engaged asrelated to bibliographic control and accessto electronic resources and to providecitations to any resulting publications. Thisrequest elicited a substantial amount ofinformation about several projectsundertaken or in development on the topic,but especially as related to remote accessmaterial. These projects and other relatedmaterial derived independently by theauthor will be fully described in the finalversion of this report to be presented at theIFLA Conference in Bangkok in August1999 and which will be appear beforehandon the IFLANET.

In the meantime, the following URLsprovide links to Web sites and electronicpublications where the visitor may discoverimportant information on the topic:

http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/business/beonline/beohome.html (Project Beonline, Library ofCongress, USA).

http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper(Research on archiving and long-termaccess, Australia.

http://hosted.ukoln.ac.uk/biblink(BIBLINK Project, European Union).

http://www.dbiberlin.de/projekte/einzproj/meta/meta00.htm;

http://www.dbi-berlin.de/homepage.htm;

http://www2.sub.unigoettingen.de/;

24

http://www.dfg.de/english/index.html (Metadata initiatives, Germany),

http://purl.dk/rapport/html.uk/biblink/(Project INDOREG, Denmark),

http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9256cat/toc.htm (Intercat Project, OCLC, USA).

http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/elec_res.html (National Digital Library, USA).

**********************************Acknowledgment

The author would like to take thisopportunity to express deep gratitude tothe 55 participating National Libraries andBibliographic Agencies who cooperated inthis study. The time and effort they devotedto completing the questionnaire are greatlyappreciated.

**********************************Endnotes

1. From Denmark, replies were received fromboth the Royal Library and the Danish LibraryCentre.

2. Munchen: K. G. Saur, 1997 (UBCIMpublications; N. S. vol. 17)

3. Regarding archiving policy, one respondentindicated that the practice is not to "collect"any electronic resources where in-printversions provide an alternative form.

25

National Bibliographic Agencies and theBook Trade

Ross BourneBritish Library National Bibliographic Service

Despite the development of the Internet in the lastfew years it is unlikely that there would be anydissent from the statement that libraries aredependent on the book trade. Although theInternet is making us rethink the very nature ofpublishing, I suspect that for all but some veryspecialised libraries (which probably callthemselves documentation or information centres)the publisher/library relationship is still more orless what it has always been and it is likely toremain so. In other words, there is a chain orcontinuum that starts with a publisher, continueswith a manufacturer, a distributor, a retailer andends with a library. And more: at one extremethere is an author or authors, and at the other alibrary user. The individual elements of thiscontinuum may or may no to always present - forexample, some publications may not go through aretailer, or the publisher may also be themanufacturer - but what is outlined above ismostly true, at least as far as mainstream librariesare concerned. Whether this continuum isrecognised outside the library community is,however, another matter. The underlyingassumption is that bibliographic information maybe shared and enhanced along the continuum, butit is possible that many publishers and retailersregard their bibliographic systems as quiteadequate for their needs, requiring no externalinput.

At its 1995 meetings during the Istanbulconference, IFLA’s Section on Bibliographyagreed that a survey should be conducted into therelationships between national bibliographicagencies1 and the book trade2. The aim of thesurvey would be to obtain a better understandingof those relationships; arising from responses to aquestionnaire, conclusions would be drawn andrecommendations developed that could be fed intoa further project to establish guidelines fordeveloping better relationships between the twosectors. The author of this article agreed toundertake the survey. In this task he was assisted

by two junior professional librarians, Mr S Bagleyand Mr I Jacklin; they carried out the analysis ofthe returned questionnaires, and the author wouldlike both to thank them for their help but also tostress that the conclusions and recommendationsare his and his alone.

A questionnaire was devised in consultation withStanding Committee members of he Section onBibliography. When refined and finalised, thisquestionnaire asked 24 questions covering fiveareas where national bibliographic agencies orNBAs interact with the book trade: book tradeco-operation, legal deposit, cataloguing-in-publication, standard numbering andbooks-in-print catalogues. The mailing list of theConference of Directors of National Libraries wasused as the basis for the survey, and out of 135questionnaires sent out 48 (35.5%) were returned.These break down on the following continentalbasis:

Africa 10 Europe 24Asia 7 North America 1Australasia & Oceania 0 Latina America & Caribbean 6

Without identifying those NBAs that did not returntheir questionnaires (or perhaps did not receivethem: postal and administrative vagaries cannot beanticipated, and time did not allow a follow-upletter), the author is satisfied that this response isreasonably representative of a range of nationalbook and library cultures. In Europe, for example,questionnaires were returned from both west andeast, including former USSR countries. Althoughthe returns from Africa, Asia adn Latin Americawere patchier, those NBAs that did respond werewell spread out in both geographical and culturalterms.

The first group of questions concerned book tradeco-operation. These responses are summarised3

• All but 13 respondents replied that formalcontact was maintained with book trade bodies.However, amongst those 13 were two majorNBAs (France and the United States).

• In answer to the question of with what booktrade bodies NBAs were in formal contact,publishers’ associations attracted mostresponses (25), followed by other bibliographicagencies (11). Other forms of contact includedjoint bodies4 (10) and individual publishers (8).

26

• The most popular topic for discussion at theseformal meetings was, predictably, legal deposit(30). Amongst other topics were commonstandards such as MARC (12), copyright (10),photocopying (8) and electronic communication(7).

• Correspondence accounted for the mostcommon form of communication (27), followedby ad hoc meetings (26). Regular meetings perse are not as common (8).

• Responses to questions on whether contactswith book trade bodies could be improved orwhether formal contact could be useful weremostly affirmative, but a small number ofrespondents did reply negatively.

• Respondents were given an opportunity toexpress themselves on how NBA/book traderelationships might develop. Since this questionis at the heart of the survey, their answers arecovered at the end of this report.

The next batch of questions concerned legaldeposit. What emerged in replies to this section ofthe questionnaire was that a number of NBAs relyon more than one form of acquisition. Fivequestions were asked; the answers are summarisedas follows.• While legal deposit is by far the commonest

form of acquisition, voluntary deposit plays asignificant role5. Purchase is used by about 50%of all respondents; some specified that it wasemployed for the completeness of theircollections. Gift and exchange was alsomentioned, rather more by non-European thanEuropean NBAs (10 to 3).

• By far the commonest source of material forboth areas is deposit by individual publishers.Agents and retailers (including library suppliers)account for 10, while in some Europeancountries printers constitute either the sole oran additional source of deposit.

• Predictably, printed material constitutes he typeof material most received under legal deposit.films and video, 17; sound recordings, 24; andhandheld electronic items, 15. Nevertheless, thissuggests that not much more than 50% ofNBAs are at present able to receive non-printmaterial. Some respondents, including theUnited Kingdom, noted that new legislation toextend legal deposit coverage beyond printedmaterial was planned; in this respect,

microforms was inadvertently omitted from thecheck-list but was picked up by a fewrespondents under the "other" category.

• In answer to the question of how effectiverespondents judged their legal deposit system,all but a few thought it either fairly effective(70-84%: 22) or very effective (85% and over:19). On the other hand, 8 NBAs recorded theireffectiveness as less than 70%, including 4 aspoor (39% and less).

• Almost all NBAs systematically claim andreclaim items not received.

Three questions on Cataloguing-in-Publicationwere asked. Surprisingly to this author, theanswers indicated clearly that CIP was not aswidespread as he had supposed, as indicatedbelow.• NBAs operating CIP programmes numbered

only 11 out of the 48 respondents. Amongst theabsentees were countries where one might haveexpected to find CIP flourishing, includingDenmark, France and the Netherlands.

• Amongst those NBAs which did operate CIPprogrammes, the chief source by far for theinformation was the publishing industry itself..those NBAs themselves produced the CIP data,although two NBAs, including notably theUnited Kingdom, reported havingsubcontracted the task to an external agency.

• Three NBAs reported very effective (i.e. 85%and higher) coverage, while a further 3 reportedcoverage as only fairly effective (70-84%), 1not very effective (40-,69%) and 4 poor (39%and less).

A set of questions related to the assignment of theInternational Standard Book Number (ISBN) andInternational Standard Serial Number (ISSN)systems.• Twenty-six NBAs issue ISBNs themselves.

Book trade bodies issue them in 9 countries6,while in 6 cases ISBNs am issued outside thecountry.

• Twenty-six NBAs issue ISSNs, while in 11countries they are assigned externally.

• Both numbering schemes may be issued bylibrary bodies other than the NBA: 4 in the caseof ISBNs and 6 in the case of ISSNs.

• A number of those NBAs not themselvesissuing either ISBNs or ISSNs commented on

27

their relationship with those bodies which didissue them. These comments are summarisedlater in this report.

The final group of questions concernedBooks-in-Print catalogues. Despite the best ofintentions, however, there was a lack of precisionin some of the questions, which resulted in acertain ambiguity in the answers. Nevertheless, thefollowing points emerged.• Eighteen NBAs answered positively to the

question on whether availability of the currentimprint was recorded in their countries and 14answered negatively.

• Amongst those NBAs which answeredpositively, 2 NBAs (Singapore and Tanzania)reported that the recording of books-in-printinformation was one of their functions, withmost other NBAs reporting that the informationwas collected elsewhere, which for the mostpart was either the national publishersassociation (5) or some other agency (7).

• A minority of NBAs (5) maintained links withthe national books-in-print operation, throughthe provision of bibliographic data.

• A majority of NBAs (26) foresaw a demand fora national books-in-print operation, while 17did not. However, in the case of some NBAs acontradictory statement was made here whencompared with the answer given to the first ofthese questions.

Two questions were asked requiring the NBA toexpress views. The second of these concerned therelationship between an NBA and what other bodyissued ISBNs or ISSNs; as will be seen from aprevious answer, this applied to a minority ofNBAs, 11 of whom responded to this question.The general drift of these answers is thatco-operation does exist between NBAs and otherlibrary bodies, but also that such co-operation isoften informal. However, the answers were so fewthat no real conclusions can be drawn. Oneinteresting answer came from the UnitedKingdom: ISBNs are assigned by another agency,but although there had been co-operation sometime ago in the past this was no longer the case. The first, and major, question for which NBAswere asked to express themselves was whetherthey had particular thoughts on how NBA/book

trade relationships should develop. Twenty-threeNBAs responded to this invitation. A number ofrespondents outside Europe replied that they sawthe holding of workshops and seminars as animportant factor in developing better relationships;and interestingly, they appeared to regard this as arole for themselves. One NBA remarked thatstrong national publishers and booksellersassociations would need to exist first. AnotherNBA, operating in a multilingual country, pointedout that communication would have to be carriedout in more than one language. European responses stressed the development oflinks to improve not only legal deposit but alsostandard numbering and CIP. The Danish NBArecalled that in the past publishers had resisted there-use of their bibliographic data, although the ideamight be revived in the context of the nationalbooks-in-print operation. Practical co-operation inthe marketing and selling of the nationalbibliography was noted by another; the NorwegianNBA had also been asked to supply standardclassification numbers by a book distributioncompany The possibility of regional books-in-printcatalogues was raised by a few NBAs. The following conclusions emerge therefore fromthis survey:• Overwhelmingly, NBAs want to improve and

develop their relationships with the book tradesector. While it is hardly surprising that suchrelationships are likely to be minimal in somecentral and eastern European countries (wherein the author’s experience the development ofthe market economy principle has not beenmarked by readiness to co-operate, even withinthe book trades themselves) and in developingcountries, it appears also to be the case in somecountries with stronger publishing and libraryinfrastructures. On the whole, NBAs appearwilling to take the lead in this matter, ratherthan waiting for the book trade to approachthem.

• It could be that such relationships mightfruitfully grow out of existing arrangements,e.g. when ISBN and /or ISSN allocation is aNBA function, or as part of the regulardialogue which NBAs must have with the booktrade as a result of legal deposit. But theexample of the UK with Book Industry

28

Communication (BIC) does suggest that newmechanisms can be created and workproductively quite independently of contentiousissues such as photocopying or legal deposit.

• Cataloguing-in-Publication appears to be aminority service, but where the service doesexist it is more likely to occur in majorpublishing nations. There needs perhaps to be are-examination of the value of CIP, e.g.whether the NBA is the right location or howfar library-type CIP information is useful incomparison with advance information suppliedby agencies or the publishers themselves.

• The relationship between the production ofnational bibliographies and books-in-printcatalogues deserves wider examination; andindeed this has been happening to a limitedextent under the auspices of he Council ofEurope7. The responses to the questionnaireindicate that the value of establishing such a linkhas yet to be demonstrated.

On the grounds hat many NBAs are obviouslyalready keen to establish better links with the booktrade, a safe recommendation to make would bethat guidelines to assist the setting up of such linksshould be prepared. A project along these linescould be based on best practice as revealed in theresponses to the questionnaire that led to thewriting of this report. It could be undertakenrelatively quickly, but would have to be reviewed -as is of course normal IFLA procedure - not onlyby IFLA’s members but also by as many booktrade bodies as possible so that the guidelineswhen published benefitted from a wide consensusof opinion. The suggestions for further work in thefields of CIP and Books-in-Print are not mattersfor the guidelines project being proposed, butnevertheless might usefully be taken forwardwithin IFLA as separate project proposals.

Finally, the author would like to thank all thosewho responded to his questionnaire; he hopes thatits eventual outcome will help contribute to betterunderstanding between the two sectors. While anemployee of the British Library, he stresses thatresponsibility for the content of this report isentirely his own.

Notes 1 Defined as those bodies, usually but not always

within national libraries, that are responsible forproducing the national bibliography.

2 Defined as publishers and/or retailers of bothprinted and non-printed items.

3 Note that throughout these summaries totalnumbers rather than percentages are given. This isnot only because some questions invited multipleanswers but also because some questions were leftunanswered, and hence percentages would bemisleading.

4 One example of a joint body is the UK’s BookIndustry Communication (BIC), sponsored by theBooksellers Association, the Library Association,the Publishers Association and the British Libraryand set up to further the development of electroniccommunication amongst the various book industrysectors.

5 It is worth noting that The Netherlands - aloneamongst European respondents - relies entirely onvoluntary deposit and Germnay depends onvoluntary deposit to obtaion German languagematerial from Austria and Switzerland. TheNetherlands, however, reported under a laterquestion that they judged their coverage as onlyfairly effective, i.e.70-84%, compared with most oftheir European counterparts.

6 In Switzerland, ISBNs for French and Italianbooks are the responsibility of agencies in Parisand Milan repectively.

7 Books in Print catalogue for Baltic republics,Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania: feasibility study / IBA(International Book Agency) Schmidt-Braul &Partner. [Strasboug]: Council of Europe, 1996(cc/livre (96) 20).

29

THE IFLA SECTION ONCATALOGUING

Ingrid ParentChair, IFLA Section on Cataloguing

The IFLA Section on Cataloguing is verypleased to participate in and support theholding of this International Conferencerelated to national bibliographic services. Thework of the section is intimately tied to thecontent of national bibliographies, which hasbeen the case since the founding of theSection.

The Section on Cataloguing was created in1935 as the Committee on UniformCataloguing Rules. In 1970 the Committee onUniform Cataloguing Rules became theCommittee on Cataloguing, which in 1976,became the Standing Committee of theSection on Cataloguing. Since its inceptionthe Section has been at the centre ofinternational developments in cataloguingtheory, activities, and standards development.

Scope

The Section on Cataloguing analyzes thefunctions of cataloguing activities for all typesof material and media, including bothbibliographic and authority information, forthe benefit of all users. The Section proposesand develops cataloguing rules, guidelines andstandards for bibliographic information takinginto account the developing electronic andnetworked environment in order to promoteuniversal access to and exchange ofbibliographic and authority information. TheSection has close relationships with manyorganizations and institutions includingnational cataloguing and standardizationcommittees, various multinationalorganizations, various committees of ISO,especially with TC46, with the Sections onBibliography, Classification and Indexing, and

Information Technology, and in particularwith the UBCIM programme office of IFLA.

Projects

The most important, widespread and lastingachievement of the Section on Cataloguinghas been the development of the variousInternational Standard BibliographicDescriptions (ISBDs): for monographs(M),serials (S), cartographic materials (CM), non-book materials (NBM), printed music (PM),antiquarian publications (A) and computerfiles (ER), formerly (CF). These standardshave been accepted world-wide and are useddirectly as cataloguing rules or form the basisfor many national cataloguing codes. Thesestandards, also of course, form the basis of thecataloguing records that appear in almost allnational bibliographies. An ISBD ReviewGroup ensures that the various ISBDs areupdated on a regular basis and that new onesare developed if necessary.

A major project that was completed by theSection in 1998 was the Study on FunctionalRequirements for Bibliographic Recordswhich delineates the full range of functionsperformed by the bibliographic record, andproposes a basic bibliographic record to beused by national bibliographic agencies.Follow-up studies are being undertaken bothby the Section on Cataloguingas well as by various user communities toassess and implement the recommendations ofthe Functional Requirements Study. Nationallibraries and national bibliographic agenciesshould note the recommendations of thisstudy, in particular as they relate to thecontent of bibliographic records which appearin national bibliographies. In addition arecommendation is made on the content for aBasic bibliographic record which would be themost minimal record that could be created andshared among national bibliographic agencies.

30

The Section is also providing leadership in thedevelopment of various standards andguidelines related to bibliographic activitiessuch as corporate name headings, authorityentries, OPAC displays, and metadatastandards. Standardized headings anddescriptions contribute to the enormouslysuccessful programme of universalbibliographic control, allowing the exchangeand integration of bibliographic recordsaround the world.

With the increasing prevalence of bothelectronic content and electronic technicalinfrastructure, the Section is ensuring thatthere are appropriate guidelines for organizingthe expanding amount of digital resources, aswell as exploring opportunities for distancelearning of cataloguing activities.

We hope that the recommendations of theconference will confirm and facilitate evenmore the creation and exchange ofbibliographic information.

Our best wishes for a successful conference.

31

Subject retrieval in nationalbibliographies

I.C. McIlwaineLois May Chan

Subject retrieval in national bibliographiescannot be satisfactorily considered outwith aspecific national context and a given set ofcircumstances. In the abstract, its value isunquestionable, but in concrete terms, the kindof subject retrieval must depend upon whatkind of bibliographic listing and what specificnational requirements are envisaged. Thecoverage, and not least the quantity ofmaterial, the publication format, the function,local circumstances such as the number ofnational languages and above all the cost ofsuch provision must all be weighed in thebalance. In addition, while the desirability ofsome form of subject access may beconsidered essential, the precise form that thataccess takes is also problematical, especially ina climate seeking to achieve the goal ofUniversal Bibliographic Control.

The 1977 Conference on nationalbibliographies made the followingrecommendations in its report relating tosubject organization in section 3, which dealsspecifically with the printed nationalbibliography:• Indices (cumulated annually) covering

complementary arrangements to that of themain text

• Include an outline of the classificationscheme (if used)

• the current issues should be arranged inclassified order in accordance with a statedinternationally used classification scheme

Section 7 which is concerned withinternational information systems is also ofrelevance to the matter. It recommends:• that studies be made of the utilization of

records produced for national

bibliographies as national input to someinformation systems and vice versa

• that greater efforts at national andinternational levels be made to ensurecompatibilitybetween the bibliographic practices of thelibrary and information communities

In the intervening twenty years much hashappened and much that was recommended atthat conference relates simply to a paper-based record covering the nationalbibliographic output in the widest sense(though at that time the width that is todayunder debate was not envisaged, viz; thatmaterial on the WWW constituted animportant element in the national output andneeded to be recorded). In formulating theideal of universal bibliographic control in theearly 1970s, certain parameters concerning"publications" were taken for granted. Theseincluded manageable volume of nationaloutput, the definite forms and permanence ofpublication (books, serials, audio-visualmaterials), provenance and languages.

Content and coverage

The content and the coverage will have adirect effect on the type of subject access thatmay be seen to be desirable. At the presenttime the decision as to what constitutes theliterary output (in the widest sense) of a nationis a subject for debate. The 1977 conferenceon national bibliographies identified threecategories of materials for inclusion, indescending order of importance. Therecommendations from that conference openwith a section on legal deposit. The legaldeposit laws of many countries are at presentbeing overhauled and extended to include amuch wider range of materials in a far greatervariety of formats. This has implications bothfor the national libraries which act as thedepositaries for such materials and for thenational bibliographies which list the output ofso vast a range. Traditionally, monographs,

32

serials, official documents, etc. have beengiven priority, with material like theses, mapsand music or publications in Braille comingmuch lower down the list of priorities.Different nations have handled these materialsin different ways and many, such as France,have adopted an approach whereby thestraightforward material is included in aweekly listing, with the more “difficult”material being reserved for a less frequentpublication. Some national bibliographies listthe contents of journals and here again theprovision of subject approach is essential.

Nowadays, in addition to materials appearingin hard copy of some kind, including videos,recordings and so on, and even computer files- all of which may be described as tangible,material that is published on the Internet isbeing discussed as appropriate for the nationallisting. Such material is frequently difficult toassign authorship to and its origins are notalways clear. It is also ephemeral by nature. Ifsuch material is to be considered part of thenational bibliographic record, the easiest wayto access much of it is via some kind ofinternationally recognized system of subjectaccess.

In the electronic environment, particularlywithin the context of Internet and the WorldWide Web, the nature of information and theforms in which it appears present a number ofchallenges to those engaged in the work ofnational bibliographies. Among these are:1. Volume: the sheer amount of information

that presents itself is staggering2. Volatility: Electronic information, when

existing in digital form only, is volatile andextremely difficult to pinpoint

3. Form-definition: the definition ofbibliographic forms such as books,manuscripts, serials, sound recordings thatexist in the print environment is no longersufficient in the electronic environment.There are many more forms and some ofthem can not be precisely defined

4. Unit-definition: Much of digital informationdoes not come in definable packages. Evenwhen it does, it is often not self-contained.Hyperlinks further blur the distinctive unitsof information. How does one define an"entry?" Is it still a viable unit marker in abibliography?

5. National-boundary-definition: With theglobal nature of Internet and WWW, howcan one say for sure that a particular pieceof information comes from a particularnation. Does a web site posted by aCanadian while in South Africa belong inthe national bibliography of Canada orSouth Africa? Furthermore, the origin isoften not ascertainable

6. Language-definition: In addition tolanguages defined by cultural terms, thereare also other types of languages, such asmachine language and special scientific andtechnical languages used by people invarious disciplines.

Within this emerging context, subject access,i.e., classification and subject indexing inparticular, in national bibliographies, must beenhanced and perhaps re-evaluated, ifelectronic information, particularly what isavailable on the World Wide Web, is to beincluded in national bibliographies.

At the present time attempts at subjectretrieval on the Web take the form, broadlyspeaking, of• Keyword searching• Broad classification used by search engines• Metadata defining basic elements in

resource description with fields for subjectdata

However, the nature and form of subject dataare still undefined. Format of the national bibliography Another influencing factor that must be bornein mind is the format in which the nationalbibliography is published. Traditionally, this

33

has been hard copy but nowadays somenational bibliographies, for instance theMalaysian, are being published only inmachine-readable format. This again may haveimplications for the subject approach since abibliography so published may easily besearched via words in titles. (The usefulness ofsuch a form of access will be considered later).Publication in machine-readable form onlyposes problems for many. Not all countrieshave the necessary equipment for such aformat nor is it necessarily the most usefulway to produce the listing, though it may wellbe the most economic. Function of the national bibliography The format also has implications for the use towhich the national bibliography may be put. Ifit is to be used for stock selection or forbrowsing to see what has been published on aparticular topic, it is much easier to handle inhard copy. It is also much more effective forsuch purposes if it is arranged in some sort ofsubject order. If it is to be used as a source forcataloguing information, a machine-readableformat that can be downloaded into individualcatalogues has many advantages, but so doesa record that includes some points of subjectaccess that correspond to those mostcommonly found in the national librarycommunity. Types of subject access Subject access may be through two differentapproaches - the purely verbal and thesystematic (normally a widely-usedclassification scheme). These approaches arenot mutually exclusive and ideally both shouldbe provided. Recommendation 5 of the 1977conference stated that the nationalbibliographic agency should consider theadoption of an internationally usedclassification scheme for the records itgenerates and that it should ensure thattraining courses are provided within the

country to instill the use of subject approach1.Anderson recommends that nationalrequirements, differing functions and users’needs must be paramount when consideringthe subject approach. She correctly points outthat one of the major problems in attemptingany kind of subject approach is thatknowledge is not static and she highlights theproblems of finding a universally acceptablesubject approach. The participants in the 1977conference were all agreed that it wasnecessary to provide a subject approach andthey were equally agreed that it wasimpossible to find a universally acceptablesystem. This is the explanation for the rathervague wording of the third recommendation:

“The current issues of the printednational bibliography should bearranged in a classified order inaccordance with a statedinternationally-used classificationscheme and the arrangements of thecumulations should be at the discretionof the national bibliographic agency”2

The implications of this statement are thatsubject access should be provided via thesystem that is most commonly found in thenational library community. Provision of aparticular form of subject access does notpresuppose that the national bibliography mustbe arranged by that system, nor does it implythat only one system should be used. Anumber of national bibliographies providesubject information using more than onesystem. The Indian national bibliography, forexample, is arranged by the Dewey DecimalClassification, but also provides Colonclassification classmarks. The CanadianNational Bibliography is arranged by theDewey Decimal Classification but providesLibrary of Congress class marks in addition toLibrary of Congress Subject Headings forEnglish material and the Répertoire devedettes-matière published by the UniversitéLaval for French material.

34

Problems of language This last is a good example of the virtues ofsubject access and demonstrates thelimitations that would derive from relyingsolely on the facility to search machine-readable records on words in titles. Wherethere is more than one national language (andIndia must be the prime occurrence of such aninstance) the use of a standard subjectapproach, whether a widely used classificationscheme or a subject headings list, providesaccess that can rise above language in titles.The facility to search in an online situation onwords in title enhances the value of such aformat. The addition of some form of subjectheading, such as those used in the Library ofCongress enhances the retrieval of subjectinformation via words. The use of aclassification system provides access that risesabove vocabulary in one particular languageand also greatly facilitates the printing out ofsubject bibliographies or lists of references ona specific subject. The range and varying formats of material andthe requirement of internationalexchangeability of records seem fundamentalto the use of some form of subject retrieval,and preferably one that is not dependant onwords alone, so that barriers of language canbe crossed. It is also relevant to considerwhether more than one type of subjectretrieval might not be appropriate. Manynational bibliographies provide more that one.For 20 years the British National Bibliographyused the Dewey Decimal Classification and aPRECIS index, and for part of that period itwas also assigning LCSH to its records. The physical arrangement of the bibliographyis often seen as of less importance in a worldof online access, but it will remainfundamental for many years to come. Firstly,there are many countries in the world who stillhave no national bibliography or who lack thefunding to create a totally online record of the

national output. Secondly, it is very helpful touse the national bibliography, or a range ofnational bibliographies, to create subjectbibliographies and listings, and the same isalso true for the creation of a listing ofparticular formats, e.g. all videos, or all videoson pollution, etc. and here the use of someform of classification eases the taskconsiderably. Economic factors But the provision of subject information isexpensive and the greater the range ofalternative systems used, the more expensivethe exercise becomes. The history of theBNB’s index, in its changes from chainindexing, to PRECIS to COMPASS and nowabbreviated headings taken from the DeweyDecimal Classification tables is a goodexample of the diminution of easy subjectaccess. At the present time, it is so reducedthat unless one is familiar with the DeweyDecimal Classification sections of it becometotally unusable; for instance the followingrandom examples appear in the May to Augustcumulation, with no qualification whatsoever: Criticism 111.85 Employee motivation 302.35

191 331.21 306.01 658.30089

410 658.314 801.95 658.31423

809 809.93355 839.7472

Forms of material Some system of subject access will alsonormally enhance the information provided inthe bibliography by indicating the form ofpublication. Most classification systems (withthe notable exception of the Library ofCongress Classification) are equipped with anauxiliary table of forms which provides thenotation to individualize whether an item is asound recording, a video, a journal etc. The

35

“free-floating subdivisions” of the Library ofCongress Subject headings perform a similarfunction. This information may, of course, beindicated in a note in the cataloguing record ormay be self-evident through the listing of“difficult” material in a series of separatelistings, as is done in France. Should therecord be provided in a machine-readableformat, that information is even morevaluable, especially if it can be identifiedthrough a symbol, so that all publications inBraille or all videos on a particular topic canbe retrieved readily. Conclusion There are strong arguments for continuing topublish, at least for the foreseeable future, anational bibliography in hard copy even if it isalso published in another format. Anarrangement via subject in such a publicationenhances the bibliography’s usefulness, foracquisition purposes and for the retrieval ofsubject requests and for the internationalexchange of information across languagebarriers. Library users are notoriously bad atproviding accurate details of either author ortitle. The title of a book is frequently confusedwith the title of the review of it in a journal.Authors write under more than one name ormore than one form of their name, especiallywhen writing for the popular market. Aboveall, if it is considered desirable to includematerial published in non-traditional formats,and especially material that has appeared onthe Net, some sort of subject arrangementbecomes even more imperative. Matters for urgent consideration include• Contents of national bibliographies. Should

they be selective, by necessity of the sheervolume of information available?

• Standards should no longer be monolithic,but allow multiple systems that arecompatible and translatable. The meaningand context of standardization must bereconsidered - no longer "a" subject

approach, but many compatible ones thatcan be integrated when needed

• Classification and subject indexing termsmust be user-oriented and intuitive-compatible with search vocabulary.Classification has great potential as anavigational and retrieval tool

• Controlled vocabulary remains a realchallenge. Assigning controlled vocabularyterms to all information is no longer anoption. A possible solution might be toshift the burden of synonym and homonymcontrol to the interface.

In 1977 the recommendation of one systemthat should be used for the arrangement of anational bibliography was deliberatelyavoided.3 It was felt that the Dewey DecimalClassification had widespread acceptance inmany parts of the world, but not in Europe. Itwas also not considered to be capable ofproviding sufficient specificity for specialistpublications. The Universal DecimalClassification, on the other hand was notconsidered sufficiently widely used byspecialist services to make it a viablealternative. There have been manyimprovements in both classifications in theintervening twenty years, and the adoption ofthe Dewey Decimal Classification for theorganization of the collections in theBibliothèque de France and in the new BritishLibrary both bear witness to the increasedpopularity of that scheme, though it stillremains a closed book in large sections ofEastern Europe, for example. In addition,those countries whose languages are not likelycandidates for translation by ForestPress/OCLC, such as Croatia or Romania, areprecisely those countries which find it difficultto maintain a national bibliography, withoutthe added complication of having to use anunfamiliar classification, and one that is notused by the national library community. Thismilitates against the internationalexchangeability of records across subjectbarriers. One possible solution might be a

36

concordance between the Dewey DecimalClassification and the UDC, but that is beyondthe terms of reference of the presentconference and should be addressed by thetwo schemes themselves.

It seems difficult for the conference torecommend one system in the way that it canrecommend one set of rules for author titledescription and the creation of a standardsimilar to an ISBD for subject description issomething that has already been anunsuccessful endeavour over the past onehundred and twenty years. This does not,mean, however, that the issue should beavoided and it would be most unfortunate forno form of subject access to be recommendedas the result of the projected meeting.

Notes 1 Anderson, D. UBC: a survey of universal

bibliographic control, London, IFLA Officefor UBC, 1982, p. 21.

2 International Congress on National Bibliographies, organized by Unesco, incollaboration with IFLA, Paris, 10-15September 1997. Final report (PGI - 77/Conf.401/Col.11), Unesco, Paris, 1978, p. 12.

3 Anderson Op cit. p. 21.

31

Subject retrieval in nationalbibliographies

I.C. McIlwaineLois May Chan

Subject retrieval in national bibliographiescannot be satisfactorily considered outwith aspecific national context and a given set ofcircumstances. In the abstract, its value isunquestionable, but in concrete terms, the kindof subject retrieval must depend upon whatkind of bibliographic listing and what specificnational requirements are envisaged. Thecoverage, and not least the quantity ofmaterial, the publication format, the function,local circumstances such as the number ofnational languages and above all the cost ofsuch provision must all be weighed in thebalance. In addition, while the desirability ofsome form of subject access may beconsidered essential, the precise form that thataccess takes is also problematical, especially ina climate seeking to achieve the goal ofUniversal Bibliographic Control.

The 1977 Conference on nationalbibliographies made the followingrecommendations in its report relating tosubject organization in section 3, which dealsspecifically with the printed nationalbibliography:• Indices (cumulated annually) covering

complementary arrangements to that of themain text

• Include an outline of the classificationscheme (if used)

• the current issues should be arranged inclassified order in accordance with a statedinternationally used classification scheme

Section 7 which is concerned withinternational information systems is also ofrelevance to the matter. It recommends:• that studies be made of the utilization of

records produced for national

bibliographies as national input to someinformation systems and vice versa

• that greater efforts at national andinternational levels be made to ensurecompatibilitybetween the bibliographic practices of thelibrary and information communities

In the intervening twenty years much hashappened and much that was recommended atthat conference relates simply to a paper-based record covering the nationalbibliographic output in the widest sense(though at that time the width that is todayunder debate was not envisaged, viz; thatmaterial on the WWW constituted animportant element in the national output andneeded to be recorded). In formulating theideal of universal bibliographic control in theearly 1970s, certain parameters concerning"publications" were taken for granted. Theseincluded manageable volume of nationaloutput, the definite forms and permanence ofpublication (books, serials, audio-visualmaterials), provenance and languages.

Content and coverage

The content and the coverage will have adirect effect on the type of subject access thatmay be seen to be desirable. At the presenttime the decision as to what constitutes theliterary output (in the widest sense) of a nationis a subject for debate. The 1977 conferenceon national bibliographies identified threecategories of materials for inclusion, indescending order of importance. Therecommendations from that conference openwith a section on legal deposit. The legaldeposit laws of many countries are at presentbeing overhauled and extended to include amuch wider range of materials in a far greatervariety of formats. This has implications bothfor the national libraries which act as thedepositaries for such materials and for thenational bibliographies which list the output ofso vast a range. Traditionally, monographs,

32

serials, official documents, etc. have beengiven priority, with material like theses, mapsand music or publications in Braille comingmuch lower down the list of priorities.Different nations have handled these materialsin different ways and many, such as France,have adopted an approach whereby thestraightforward material is included in aweekly listing, with the more “difficult”material being reserved for a less frequentpublication. Some national bibliographies listthe contents of journals and here again theprovision of subject approach is essential.

Nowadays, in addition to materials appearingin hard copy of some kind, including videos,recordings and so on, and even computer files- all of which may be described as tangible,material that is published on the Internet isbeing discussed as appropriate for the nationallisting. Such material is frequently difficult toassign authorship to and its origins are notalways clear. It is also ephemeral by nature. Ifsuch material is to be considered part of thenational bibliographic record, the easiest wayto access much of it is via some kind ofinternationally recognized system of subjectaccess.

In the electronic environment, particularlywithin the context of Internet and the WorldWide Web, the nature of information and theforms in which it appears present a number ofchallenges to those engaged in the work ofnational bibliographies. Among these are:1. Volume: the sheer amount of information

that presents itself is staggering2. Volatility: Electronic information, when

existing in digital form only, is volatile andextremely difficult to pinpoint

3. Form-definition: the definition ofbibliographic forms such as books,manuscripts, serials, sound recordings thatexist in the print environment is no longersufficient in the electronic environment.There are many more forms and some ofthem can not be precisely defined

4. Unit-definition: Much of digital informationdoes not come in definable packages. Evenwhen it does, it is often not self-contained.Hyperlinks further blur the distinctive unitsof information. How does one define an"entry?" Is it still a viable unit marker in abibliography?

5. National-boundary-definition: With theglobal nature of Internet and WWW, howcan one say for sure that a particular pieceof information comes from a particularnation. Does a web site posted by aCanadian while in South Africa belong inthe national bibliography of Canada orSouth Africa? Furthermore, the origin isoften not ascertainable

6. Language-definition: In addition tolanguages defined by cultural terms, thereare also other types of languages, such asmachine language and special scientific andtechnical languages used by people invarious disciplines.

Within this emerging context, subject access,i.e., classification and subject indexing inparticular, in national bibliographies, must beenhanced and perhaps re-evaluated, ifelectronic information, particularly what isavailable on the World Wide Web, is to beincluded in national bibliographies.

At the present time attempts at subjectretrieval on the Web take the form, broadlyspeaking, of• Keyword searching• Broad classification used by search engines• Metadata defining basic elements in

resource description with fields for subjectdata

However, the nature and form of subject dataare still undefined. Format of the national bibliography Another influencing factor that must be bornein mind is the format in which the nationalbibliography is published. Traditionally, this

33

has been hard copy but nowadays somenational bibliographies, for instance theMalaysian, are being published only inmachine-readable format. This again may haveimplications for the subject approach since abibliography so published may easily besearched via words in titles. (The usefulness ofsuch a form of access will be considered later).Publication in machine-readable form onlyposes problems for many. Not all countrieshave the necessary equipment for such aformat nor is it necessarily the most usefulway to produce the listing, though it may wellbe the most economic. Function of the national bibliography The format also has implications for the use towhich the national bibliography may be put. Ifit is to be used for stock selection or forbrowsing to see what has been published on aparticular topic, it is much easier to handle inhard copy. It is also much more effective forsuch purposes if it is arranged in some sort ofsubject order. If it is to be used as a source forcataloguing information, a machine-readableformat that can be downloaded into individualcatalogues has many advantages, but so doesa record that includes some points of subjectaccess that correspond to those mostcommonly found in the national librarycommunity. Types of subject access Subject access may be through two differentapproaches - the purely verbal and thesystematic (normally a widely-usedclassification scheme). These approaches arenot mutually exclusive and ideally both shouldbe provided. Recommendation 5 of the 1977conference stated that the nationalbibliographic agency should consider theadoption of an internationally usedclassification scheme for the records itgenerates and that it should ensure thattraining courses are provided within the

country to instill the use of subject approach1.Anderson recommends that nationalrequirements, differing functions and users’needs must be paramount when consideringthe subject approach. She correctly points outthat one of the major problems in attemptingany kind of subject approach is thatknowledge is not static and she highlights theproblems of finding a universally acceptablesubject approach. The participants in the 1977conference were all agreed that it wasnecessary to provide a subject approach andthey were equally agreed that it wasimpossible to find a universally acceptablesystem. This is the explanation for the rathervague wording of the third recommendation:

“The current issues of the printednational bibliography should bearranged in a classified order inaccordance with a statedinternationally-used classificationscheme and the arrangements of thecumulations should be at the discretionof the national bibliographic agency”2

The implications of this statement are thatsubject access should be provided via thesystem that is most commonly found in thenational library community. Provision of aparticular form of subject access does notpresuppose that the national bibliography mustbe arranged by that system, nor does it implythat only one system should be used. Anumber of national bibliographies providesubject information using more than onesystem. The Indian national bibliography, forexample, is arranged by the Dewey DecimalClassification, but also provides Colonclassification classmarks. The CanadianNational Bibliography is arranged by theDewey Decimal Classification but providesLibrary of Congress class marks in addition toLibrary of Congress Subject Headings forEnglish material and the Répertoire devedettes-matière published by the UniversitéLaval for French material.

34

Problems of language This last is a good example of the virtues ofsubject access and demonstrates thelimitations that would derive from relyingsolely on the facility to search machine-readable records on words in titles. Wherethere is more than one national language (andIndia must be the prime occurrence of such aninstance) the use of a standard subjectapproach, whether a widely used classificationscheme or a subject headings list, providesaccess that can rise above language in titles.The facility to search in an online situation onwords in title enhances the value of such aformat. The addition of some form of subjectheading, such as those used in the Library ofCongress enhances the retrieval of subjectinformation via words. The use of aclassification system provides access that risesabove vocabulary in one particular languageand also greatly facilitates the printing out ofsubject bibliographies or lists of references ona specific subject. The range and varying formats of material andthe requirement of internationalexchangeability of records seem fundamentalto the use of some form of subject retrieval,and preferably one that is not dependant onwords alone, so that barriers of language canbe crossed. It is also relevant to considerwhether more than one type of subjectretrieval might not be appropriate. Manynational bibliographies provide more that one.For 20 years the British National Bibliographyused the Dewey Decimal Classification and aPRECIS index, and for part of that period itwas also assigning LCSH to its records. The physical arrangement of the bibliographyis often seen as of less importance in a worldof online access, but it will remainfundamental for many years to come. Firstly,there are many countries in the world who stillhave no national bibliography or who lack thefunding to create a totally online record of the

national output. Secondly, it is very helpful touse the national bibliography, or a range ofnational bibliographies, to create subjectbibliographies and listings, and the same isalso true for the creation of a listing ofparticular formats, e.g. all videos, or all videoson pollution, etc. and here the use of someform of classification eases the taskconsiderably. Economic factors But the provision of subject information isexpensive and the greater the range ofalternative systems used, the more expensivethe exercise becomes. The history of theBNB’s index, in its changes from chainindexing, to PRECIS to COMPASS and nowabbreviated headings taken from the DeweyDecimal Classification tables is a goodexample of the diminution of easy subjectaccess. At the present time, it is so reducedthat unless one is familiar with the DeweyDecimal Classification sections of it becometotally unusable; for instance the followingrandom examples appear in the May to Augustcumulation, with no qualification whatsoever: Criticism 111.85 Employee motivation 302.35

191 331.21 306.01 658.30089

410 658.314 801.95 658.31423

809 809.93355 839.7472

Forms of material Some system of subject access will alsonormally enhance the information provided inthe bibliography by indicating the form ofpublication. Most classification systems (withthe notable exception of the Library ofCongress Classification) are equipped with anauxiliary table of forms which provides thenotation to individualize whether an item is asound recording, a video, a journal etc. The

35

“free-floating subdivisions” of the Library ofCongress Subject headings perform a similarfunction. This information may, of course, beindicated in a note in the cataloguing record ormay be self-evident through the listing of“difficult” material in a series of separatelistings, as is done in France. Should therecord be provided in a machine-readableformat, that information is even morevaluable, especially if it can be identifiedthrough a symbol, so that all publications inBraille or all videos on a particular topic canbe retrieved readily. Conclusion There are strong arguments for continuing topublish, at least for the foreseeable future, anational bibliography in hard copy even if it isalso published in another format. Anarrangement via subject in such a publicationenhances the bibliography’s usefulness, foracquisition purposes and for the retrieval ofsubject requests and for the internationalexchange of information across languagebarriers. Library users are notoriously bad atproviding accurate details of either author ortitle. The title of a book is frequently confusedwith the title of the review of it in a journal.Authors write under more than one name ormore than one form of their name, especiallywhen writing for the popular market. Aboveall, if it is considered desirable to includematerial published in non-traditional formats,and especially material that has appeared onthe Net, some sort of subject arrangementbecomes even more imperative. Matters for urgent consideration include• Contents of national bibliographies. Should

they be selective, by necessity of the sheervolume of information available?

• Standards should no longer be monolithic,but allow multiple systems that arecompatible and translatable. The meaningand context of standardization must bereconsidered - no longer "a" subject

approach, but many compatible ones thatcan be integrated when needed

• Classification and subject indexing termsmust be user-oriented and intuitive-compatible with search vocabulary.Classification has great potential as anavigational and retrieval tool

• Controlled vocabulary remains a realchallenge. Assigning controlled vocabularyterms to all information is no longer anoption. A possible solution might be toshift the burden of synonym and homonymcontrol to the interface.

In 1977 the recommendation of one systemthat should be used for the arrangement of anational bibliography was deliberatelyavoided.3 It was felt that the Dewey DecimalClassification had widespread acceptance inmany parts of the world, but not in Europe. Itwas also not considered to be capable ofproviding sufficient specificity for specialistpublications. The Universal DecimalClassification, on the other hand was notconsidered sufficiently widely used byspecialist services to make it a viablealternative. There have been manyimprovements in both classifications in theintervening twenty years, and the adoption ofthe Dewey Decimal Classification for theorganization of the collections in theBibliothèque de France and in the new BritishLibrary both bear witness to the increasedpopularity of that scheme, though it stillremains a closed book in large sections ofEastern Europe, for example. In addition,those countries whose languages are not likelycandidates for translation by ForestPress/OCLC, such as Croatia or Romania, areprecisely those countries which find it difficultto maintain a national bibliography, withoutthe added complication of having to use anunfamiliar classification, and one that is notused by the national library community. Thismilitates against the internationalexchangeability of records across subjectbarriers. One possible solution might be a

36

concordance between the Dewey DecimalClassification and the UDC, but that is beyondthe terms of reference of the presentconference and should be addressed by thetwo schemes themselves.

It seems difficult for the conference torecommend one system in the way that it canrecommend one set of rules for author titledescription and the creation of a standardsimilar to an ISBD for subject description issomething that has already been anunsuccessful endeavour over the past onehundred and twenty years. This does not,mean, however, that the issue should beavoided and it would be most unfortunate forno form of subject access to be recommendedas the result of the projected meeting.

Notes 1 Anderson, D. UBC: a survey of universal

bibliographic control, London, IFLA Officefor UBC, 1982, p. 21.

2 International Congress on National Bibliographies, organized by Unesco, incollaboration with IFLA, Paris, 10-15September 1997. Final report (PGI - 77/Conf.401/Col.11), Unesco, Paris, 1978, p. 12.

3 Anderson Op cit. p. 21.

37

Bibliographic Control Activitiesin Southeast Asia

by Dahlia Zainal,Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia

Bibliographic control activities inSoutheast Asia existed as early as the17th Century as was in the case ofIndonesia and the 19th century inThailand, although the other countriesstarted much later. The gaps in thedevelopment of libraries in countries ofSoutheast Asia occurred largely due towar and the different phases of theeconomic development of the countries.

National libraries

Establishment

By 1964, only six out of the twelvecountries of Southeast Asia had formallyestablished their national libraries. Thesecountries were Burma, Khmer Republic,Thailand, North Vietnam, SouthVietnam and Singapore. The otherremaining countries had librariesdesignated to function partially asnational libraries. By 1974, nationallibraries had been established in allsovereign Southeast Asian states exceptIndonesia.1 To date, Brunei still does nothave a national library though DewanBahasa dan Pustaka is currently actingas a National Library and carrying out afew of its functions. The NationalLibrary of the Philippines, NationalLibrary of Singapore and the National

1 Anuar, Hedwig. The planning of nationallibraries in Southeast Asia. In: Issues inSoutheast Asian librarianship. Gower :Information Pub., 1985, p. 3-22.

Library of Laos function both as anational and a public library.

According to the data from the Databaseon Legislation Relating to NationalLibraries throughout the World,2

undertaken by the Lenin State Libraryfor IFLA there were six Asian countrieswithout relevant legislation. They areAfghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos,Mynmar (then Burma) and Nepal. Allthe Southeast Asian countries exceptMynmar, Cambodia and Laos, had theirnational libraries established throughtheir respective legislation. Thefunctions of these national libraries aresimilar to those functions set out byIFLA3 except for national libraries ofLaos and Singapore.

In many Southeast Asian countries,national library activities are regulatedby a specific law or a governmentaldecree which state the objectives andfunctions of the national library. As forMalaysia, its national library wasestablished through the National LibraryAct 1973 (Act 80) which was lateramended in 1987 (A667) to enhance itsobjectives and functions. ThePresidential Decree No. 11 was passedin 1989 for the establishment of theNational Library of Indonesia. TheNational Library incorporated fourlibraries within the Ministry ofEducation and Culture, one of which, theCentral Museum Library. Such a form oflegislative regulation of national libraryactivities is also used in cases where thenational library is part of anotherinstitutions as the National Library of

2 Bagrova, L.Y. Database on legislation relatingto national libraries throughout the world. IFLAJournal 16(3), p. 336-342.3 Sylvester, Guy. Guidelines for nationallibraries. Paris : Unesco, 1987. (PGI-87/ws/17)

38

Cambodia which functions within theMinistry of Culture, Cambodia. As forSingapore, the establishment ofSingapore National Library Board whichis a part of the National Library Serviceswas through the National Library BoardAct 1995.

Development

The national library situation inSoutheast Asia varies from country tocountry. The more develop countrieshave their national libraries betterequipped and financially capable to carryout their development. The NationalLibrary of Vietnam which was started in1917, known then as the BibliothequeCentrale of Indochina suffered becauseof the war and the 18 years of total tradeembargo imposed by the United States.The US Trading with the Enemy Actempowered the president to ban “buying,selling, trading to otherwise conductingbusiness with the enemy or any allay ofthe enemy”4. This made programmes ofbook and information exchangesespecially from the United Statesdifficult and expensive as these materialshad to be channeled through a third partywhich often took more than a yearbefore arriving in Vietnam.

The National Library of Cambodia alsosuffered badly under the Khmer regimeand a complete trade embargo imposedby the United States. Much of itsnational heritage was lost and destroyedduring the war. Major libraries andarchives were closed; their holdingspartially destroyed with the other part of

4 Gould, Sara and Judy Watkins. From palmleaves to PCs : library development in SoutheastAsia. Boston Spa : IFLA Pub., 1995.

their collections held in institutionsoutside the country5. The NationalLibrary of Laos also receivedinsufficient budget from the governmentand has to depend on donations fromforeign governments and internationalorganisations. Apart from the nationallibraries mentioned above the nationallibraries of Malaysia, Singapore,Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand arebetter developed with well organisedlibrary programmes.

Legal deposit act

The national libraries of Malaysia,Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, and thePhilippines act as legal depositorycenters of all library materials publishedin their own respective countries, withthe passing of their own legal depositact. Only Cambodia has not passed anylegal deposit act depriving its ownNational Library of a comprehensivenational collection.

Malaysia seemed to be more fortunatethan some of its neighbours excludingSingapore and Indonesia, in terms of thelegal provisions for the depository oflibrary materials to the national library.The Preservation of Books Act whichwas passed in 1966 but was laterrepealed by the Deposit of LibraryMaterial Act, 1986 (Act 331) designatedPerpustakaan Negara Malaysia as thesole Legal Depository Centre for thenation. Under the Act, publishers arerequired to deposit 5 copies of printedmaterials and 2 copies of non-printed

5 Eng Po. “The situation of the library field inCambodia : a country report” paper presented atthe IFLA/UBCIM Seminar on BibliographicControl, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12 March 1998.

39

library materials to the NationalDepository Centre..

Under the National Library Board Act1995 of Singapore, Singapore NationalBibliography acts as a center for legaldeposit which makes it compulsory fortwo copies of library materialspublished in Singapore to be depositedwith the Board6. In Indonesia, as early asthe 17th century, there was an Actimposed on publishers of theNetherlands East Indies to submit a copyof their latest publications to the libraryto the National Museum Library.7

During the World War II, the JapaneseColonial Government (1942-1945) senttheir publications to the MuseumLibrary. They consisted mostly ofIndonesian materials, in addition toseveral newspapers and journals printedin Japanese. However, it was only in1990 that the Deposit Act No. 4/1990 forPrinted and Recorded Materials cameinto being which made compulsory thattwo copies of every new title producedby the national publishing industryand/or bearing a national imprint shouldbe submitted to and deposited at theNational Library.

In Brunei, Laos, Thailand and Mynmarthe situations are rather different. InBrunei, which still have no nationallibrary of its own, the Preservation ofBook Act, 1967 empowers the Brunei

6 Fauziah Ibrahim. SILAS the nationalbibliographic database and network ofSingapore : country report. Paper presented atthe IFLA/UBCIM Seminar on BibliographicControl, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12 March, 1998.7 Rachmananta, Dady. Bibliographic controlthrough the Indonesian National Library System: country report. Paper presented at theIFLA/UBCIM Seminar on BibliographicControl, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12 March, 1998.

Museums instead of the Dewan Bahasaand Pustaka Brunei, to collect andpreserve three copies of all localpublications published in Brunei. InLaos, Thailand and Mynmar, thenational libraries are not the depositorycentres of library materials and have notbeen designated the legal deposit laws.The National Library of Laos whosemajor function is to compile and publishthe national bibliography has no directaccess to the deposited publications. TheDepartment of State Publishing,Distribution, Library and Sign, which isresponsible for publishing, printing andbook distribution has also beendesignated as the government depositoryhouse. It has been issued a temporarylegal depository regulation requesting allpublishers to send their publications tothe National Library. Prior to this,between 1975-85, all rules andregulations established for controllingprinting materials including deposit law,were abolished. The National Library ofThailand acquires library materialsthrough the provisions of the Press ActB.E. 2484 (A.D. 1941) and the CabinetResolution urging all government officesand state enterprises to send copies of alltheir publications to the national library.In Mynmar, the Printers and PublishersRegistration Act, promulgated in 1962,empowered the National Library ofMynmar to receive one copy of anyprinted material published in thecountry. Every publisher has to present acopy of each publication to the PressSecurity and Registration Division andthe office has to forward this copy to thenational library. The authoritiesconcerned will also enforce the act. TheCopyright Act, enacted in 1911,accorded to the National Library ofmynmar the privilege of accessing onelegal deposit copy of every publication

40

in Mynmar, but since its promulgationthere has been little enforcement.

Cambodia is the only country ofSoutheast Asia that have no legal depositAct. The Legal Deposit and CopyrightAct is still being drafted by the legalauthorities with the assistence of theNational Library of Cambodia.

National bibliography

Through the collection of nationalimprints and enactment of legal depositlaws, national bibliographies are to becompiled and published. However, notall national libraries of Southeast Asiapublish national bibliographies. Somepublished national bibliographies arealso not current and not comprehensivein its coverage. Most national libraries,excluding national libraries of Malaysia,Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippinesonly cover books in their nationalbibliographies.

National Library of Mynmar, Cambodiaand Vietnam do not publish theirnational bibliographies due to the lack offunds and difficulties in theimplementation of the legal deposit laws.The compilation of the MynmarNational Bibliography for the post-independence period (1948-1996) is stillin its planning stage. However, someretrospective dissertations andbibliographies on bibliography of bookspublished in Mynmar from 1920-1955have been compiled.

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia,publishes the Malaysian NationalBibliography which lists all materialspublished in Malaysia, deposited at theNational Library of Malaysia under the

Deposit of Library Materials Act 1986.The last printed edition is 4th quarter1990. Since then retrospectivecompilation of Malaysian NationalBibliography 1967-1988 in CD-ROMformat has also been produced.Bibliographic records for materialspublished from 1989 onwards isaccessible from our database.

In Indonesia, the task of collecting allprinted materials published in thecountry was carried out by the NationalMuseum Library as early as during theDutch colonial period from the 17th

century to just before the start of 2nd

World War. It was taken over by theNational Bibliography Centre in early1950s. It collected and listed theimprints in Monthly News from 1953 to1962 with an annual cumulative edition.The Monthly News changed its name toBibliografi Nasional Indonesia in 1963and its frequency from monthly toquarterly. The three quarterly issues ofone year were then cumulated with thefourth quarter edition to form the annualedition. This cumulative edition waslater abandoned due to budget constraintleaving the publication to be publishedquarterly.

Bibliographic control activities inThailand was started as early as 1882.The first bibliography produced by theNational Library of Thailand was theCatalogue of the Books of the RoyalVajiranana Library published in 1882.The bibliography contained 6,564foreign book entries. However, the firstNational Bibliography of Thailand wasonly published in 1958. In 1967, the firstretrospective bibliography for the period1962-1967 was published followed bythe second retrospective bibliography of1968-1973 in 1981. In 1987, with the

41

cooperation of 16 major libraries inThailand, the computerised NationalBibliography was published coveringpublications up to 1975.

The National Library of Lao PDR haspublished its first national bibliographycovering books published from 1967-1974. Another project to compile andprint the National Bibliography of Laosfrom 1975-1990 has not been carried outdue to lack of fund.

In Brunei, although the Preservation ofBooks Act was passed in 1967, theBrunei Museum’s Library was only ableto publish a retrospective nationalbibliography covering 1967-1991, in1996.

National bibliographt on cd-rom

Presently, only Perpustakaan NegaraMalaysia and the National Library Boardof Singapore have published NationalBibliographies on CD-ROM whileIndonesian National Library is stillpreparing theirs. However, as have beenmentioned earlier in this paper, theNational Bibliography on CD-ROMpublished by Perpustakaan NegaraMalaysia is a reproduction from printformat of records covering the years1966-1988 and perhaps later recordsfrom 1989-1993. As for Singapore, itsnational bibliography was first producedon CD-ROM since 1993 whichsuperseded the print versions. Since1993, the Singapore NationalBibliography is produced in CD-ROMformat. The production of the CD-ROMis cumulative and updated semi-annually.

Resource sharing of information

The most common resource sharing ofInformation of libraries in SoutheastAsia is the inter-library loan of librarymaterials. It allows participating librariesto share library resources irrespective oftheir locations within the country.National libraries in Southeast Asiacarry out this function and act as liaisoncentre to other libraries in their ownrespective countries.

To encourage free flow of information,libraries in Southeast Asia carry outresource sharing of information in theform of library consortia, inter-libraryloan or networking. Library consortiainvolve cooperating cataloguing projectsbetween libraries. The national librariesof Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore,Indonesia and Thailand have carried outthese projects.

In the Philippines, the DOST-ESEPlibrary network was set up to providemember libraries an integrated librarysystem that they can be use and at thesame time accessed through theirnetworks. The National Library ofPhilippines has also set up its ownPublic Library Network (PUBLIN)which is the automation program of theNational Library which include theNational Bibliographic servicesprogram and the collection program.

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia togetherwith five university libraries and theNanyang Technical Institute inSingapore carried out a sharedcomputerized cataloguing project in aneffort to develop a centralized unioncatalogue system in 1978. This projectresulted in the creation of a Union

42

catalogue database of consortiumlibraries, the National Union List ofSerials and the Malaysian NationalBibliography. This MALMARC projectended in 1990 when member librariesdecided to have their own integratedlibrary system. However each libraryhad downloaded their records fromMALMARC databases to their owndatabase which in turn enable libraries toshare their catalogue databases viaInternet or Telnet facilities. ThePerpustakaan Negara Malaysia also,together with Malaysian Institute ofMicroelectronics system (MIMOS)jointly undertake an R & D projectcalled JARINGAN ILMU to establish anational information network system.Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia also actsas the main body and coordinator.Information available consists ofbibliography, fulltext and multimedia,access to e-mail, electronic file transfer,remote access and on-line DocumentDelivery System.

A network of bibliographic database wasestablished with the setting up of theSingapore Integrated National LibrarySystem (SILAS). SILAS wasconceptualised out of a proposal fromthe Sub-Committee on LibraryAutomation (SCOLA) which workedunder the wings of the Joint StandingCommittee of the Library Association ofSingapore (LAS) and the PersatuanPerpustakaan Malaysia (LibraryAssociation of Malaysia). One of theprojects identified was the NationalBibliographic Database Project. Amongthe major objectives of SILAS are todevelop the national bibliographicdatabase, provide co-operative onlineshared cataloguing services and facilitateco-operative acquisition and interlibraryloan services. SILAS makes available a

database containing the cataloguingrecords of over 7.8 million titles ofmonographs, audio-visual materials,computer files etc. Through its network,SILAS links most major public,academic, special and commercialorganisation libraries as well as bookvendors in Singapore. Its 44 localmember libraries use the NationalBibliographic Database for onlinereference searches, bibliographicverifications and copy cataloguing.

In Indonesia, an informal nationalinformation network comprising oflibraries specialising in certain subjectareas, started to emerge in the early1970s. In addition, an integrated nationallibrary system was set up for thedevelopment of libraries, comprising ofthe national libraries, regional libraries,public libraries, school libraries,university libraries and special libraries.To date, there are about 23 librarynetwork systems available with thenational library as the coordinator andsecretariat of the network .

Lao and Mynmar are using CDS/ISIS forits computerision project. There is nolibrary networking as yet. However, InMynmar, the Central BiomedicalLibrary, Department of MedicalResearch (CBL/DMR) in the field ofmedicine, has already formed acooperative network among medicallibraries i.e HELLIS (Health LiteratureLibrary and Information Services)assisted by World Health Organisation(WHO). Indexes of articles from medicaljournals and literature and union lists ofall medical libraries’ holdings are beingcompiled and disseminated to otherlibraries.

43

The National Library of Vietnam, hasestablished databases to facilitate thesharing of information. Database SACH(BOOKS) includes all Vietnamese booksreceived through Legal deposit from1986 onwards. Database SVHC(Retrospective conversion books) of allVietnamese books published beforecomputerization of National Library ofVietnam in 1986. The national Library isalso working on the “Controlledvocabulary” and Vietnam MARCspecification as a standard to beimplemented by other libraries inVietnam.

In Thailand, Thai National InformationSystem (THAI NATIS), a nationalbibliographic database network was alsocreated consisting of six memberlibraries specialising in specific fieldssuch as agriculture, medical science andhumanities, to facilitate exchange ofinformation and resources. The NationalLibrary of Thailand acts as theSecretariat of THAI NATIS.

Problems and issues

Lack of fund and resources

Insufficient funds and resources are theimportant factors which causes disparitybetween national libraries of Lao PDR,Mynmar and Cambodia to nationallibraries of Malaysia, Singapore,Thailand and Philippines. Thesecountries received very little budgetfrom the government and have to dependon donation from foreign governmentand international organisation. For thisreason, library cooperation and resourcesharing in the form of networking cannotbe carried out even though there areplans to implement this programme.

Computerisation

Not all national libraries are able to carryout computerisation of theirbibliographical records as budgetallocations are only spent on purchasingof library materials. Even if thedonations received were in the form ofPCs and equipment, there would not beenough budget for maintainence.National libraries of Lao PDR,Cambodia and Mynmar are unable tocreate databases pertaining to theircollections

Legal deposit act

As have been mentioned above, there arestill national libraries without legaldeposit law. For this reason,comprehensive national bibliographieshave not been compiled. National andcultural heritage of a particular countrycannot be documented and preserved forfuture generations. In Laos, between1975-85, the government abolished thedeposit law and prevented the nationallibrary from publishing the nationalbibliography as it was believed thatthose materials might containconfidential information. Enforcing andimplementing the act is another hasslethat national libraries have to encounter.Some publishers are unawares on theexistence of legal deposit laws.Publishers too are often reluctant todeposit their publications to the nationallibraries free of charge.

Documentation of library materials

There is little uniformity in bibliographicdescription of data especially incountries which have many dialects. In

44

Laos for example, although English,French and Vietnamese are spoken, thereare another 60 dialects being spoken bythe minority groups. The computersoftware used in the national librarycannot accommodate Lao font and has tobe transliterated into Roman scriptsbefore being input into the computer.

In Mynmar, the non-standardisation oftransliteration rules of Mynmar scriptsfor bibliographic work made it difficultfor the national library to compilenational bibliography. At present,computer software use for bibliographicrecords is not able to index and retrievematerials in Mynmar language.

In Malaysia, Perpustakaan NegaraMalaysia is experiencing difficulties indocumenting materials in Jawi scriptsusing computers as there is no computersoftware that accommodate this scripts.Bibliographic data in Jawi scripts has tobe transliterated into Roman scriptsbefore inputting into the database.

Conclusion

The development of national libraries inSoutheast Asia varies between the moredeveloped and the less developedcountries. National libraries, especiallyin countries which were suffering fromthe aftermath of war or oppressivepolitical system are still struggling toplan and implement library programmes.Generally, national libraries do notreceive the same priority as that given toother services especially education,health and public work. Insufficientfunds and resources and the lack ofenforcement of Legal Deposit laws aresome of the problems which hinderednational library development. Despitevarious setbacks, these national libraries

are making considerable efforts torecover, conserve, compile and guard itsnational heritage and at the same time,making it accessible to their users. Inview of this, there is a need to increasecooperation and resource sharing ofinformation between the nationallibraries of Southeast Asia. Nationallibraries in Southeast Asia which aremore advanced in technology andresources should, together with IFLA,play the leading role in organisingcooperative projects especially onbibliographic control activities. It ishoped that with the “Plan of Action”(Appendix) agreed upon at the end of theIFLA/UBCIM Regional Seminar onBibliographic Control held in KualaLumpur on 9-12 March 1998,bibliographic control activities inSoutheast Asiawill be able to moveforward and improve further.

References

1. Oli Mohamad, ed. Formulating a NationalPolicy for Library and InformationServices: the Malaysian experience. PetalingJaya: Pelanduk Publications, 1988.

2. Anuar, Hedwig. Issues in Southeast Asianlibrarianship. Hampshire: GowerPublishing, 1985.

3. Anuar, Hedwig. The National Library ofSingapore 1958-1983. In Proceedings of aConference on National and Academiclibraries in Malaysia and Singapore. Penang,March 1974. Penang: PersatuanPerpustakaan Malaysia and LibraryAssociation of Singapore 1975.

4. Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia. Profile ofNational Libraries in Southeast Asia. KualaLumpur: Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia,1997

5. Gould, Sara and Judy Watkins. From palmleaves to Pcs: library development in

45

Southeast Asia. Boston Spa: IFLA Pub.,1995

6. Horton, Warren. Cooperation in theAsia/Pacific region. ALEXANDRIA 5(3),p.159-160, 1993.

7. Malaysia. National Library Act 1972.

8. Malaysia. National Library (Amendment)Act 1987 (Act A 667)

9. Rothman, F. K. Trading with the enemy:Vietnamese libraries and the U.S. embargo.American Libraries 24(1), p. 86-87, 1993.

10. Singapore Library 2000 Review Committee.Library 2000: investing in a learning nation,Singapore, 1995.

11. Voogt, Leo. Valuable connection-mutualbenefits : IFLA and the networking oflibrary and information professionals. IFLAJournal 25(2), p. 54-64, 1994.

12. Detmahinh Souphanh. “Bibliographiccontrol in Lao PDR : a country report ”paper presented at the IFLA/UBCIMSeminar on Bibliographic Control, KualaLumpur, 9-12 March, 1998.

13. Rachmananta, Dady “Bibliographic controlthrough the Indonesian National LibrarySystem” paper presented at theIFLA/UBCIM Seminar on BibliographicControl, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12 March, 1998.

14. Abd. Talip Haji Tassim. “Bibliographiccontrol in Brunei Darussalam: a briefsurvey of published materials” paperpresented at the IFLA/UBCIM Seminar onBibliographic Control, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12March, 1998.

15. Daw Mya Oo. “National bibliographiccontrol activities in Myanma: a countryreport ” paper presented at theIFLA/UBCIM Seminar on BibliographicControl, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12 March, 1998.

16. Supanee Ouyporn. “National bibliographiccontrol activities in Thailand: a countryreport ” paper presented at the

IFLA/UBCIM Seminar on BibliographicControl, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12 March, 1998.

17. Nguyen Thi Kim Loan. “Bibliographiccontrol in Vietnam: computerization,cooperation and network: a county report ”paper presented at the IFLA/UBCIMSeminar on Bibliographic Control, KualaLumpur, 9-12 March, 1998.

18. Eng Po. “The situation of the library field inCambodia : a country report” paperpresented at the IFLA/UBCIM Seminar onbibliographic Control, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12March, 1998.

19. Da Tominez, Leonila. “Bibliographicactivities in the Philippines: a countryreport” paper presented at theIFLA/UBCIM Seminar on BibliographicControl, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12 March, 1998.

20. Fauziah Ibrahim. “ SILAS the nationalbibliographic database and network ofSingapore: a country report ” paperpresented at the IFLA/UBCIM Seminar onBibliographic Control, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12March, 1998.

21. Dahlia Zainal and Faridah Zainal Abidin“ Bibliographic control activities inMalaysia ” paper presented at theIFLA/UBCIM Seminar on BibliographicControl, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12 March, 1998.

22. Salimah Abdul Rahman and AdibahAhmad Rafae. “ Cataloguing and treatmentof materials written in Jawi: experiences ofMalaysia ” paper presented at theIFLA/UBCIM Seminar on BibliographicControl, Kuala Lumpur, 9-12 March, 1998.

23. Hardjoprakoso, Mastini. Librarydevelopment in Indonesia a country report.IN Libraries in national development. Papersand proceedings of the Tenth Congress ofSoutheast Asian Librarians, Kuala Lumpur,May 1996. Kuala Lumpur: CONSAL X,1996.

24. Mandoza-Bolos, Adaracion. Philippinelibraries in national development: a countryreport. IN Papers and proceedings of theTenth Congress of Southeast Asian

46

Librarians, Kuala Lumpur, May 1996. KualaLimpur : CONSAL X, 1996, p. 57-70.

25. Chan, Fook Weng. Library development inSingapore: country report. IN Papers andproceedings of the Tenth Congress ofSoutheast Asian Librarians, Kuala Lumpur,May 1996. Kuala Lumpur: CONSAL X,1996, P. 71-82.

26. Thara Kanakamani & Prachark Wattannusit.Library and information in Thailand : acountry report. IN Papers and proceedings ofthe Tenth Congress of Southeast AsianLibrarians, Kuala Lumpur, May 1996. KualaLumpur : CONSAL X, 1996, p. 83-89.

27. Abu Bakar Haji Zainal. Papers andproceedings of the Tenth Congress ofSoutheast Asian Librarians, Kuala Lumpur,May 1996. Kuala Lumpur: CONSAL X,1996, p. 17-25.

28. Tairas, J.N.B. Bibliographic control diIndonesia. IN Mochtar, Kustiniyati. Sosokpribadi unik Mastini Hardjoprakoso. Jakarta:Yayasan Kawedri, 1994. P. 162-174.

29. Thara Kanakamani. The National Library ofThailand’s role in the library cooperation. INConference papers on National Library ofThailand. Bangkok: National Library, 1992.P. 85-102.

30. Thara Kanakamani. National LibraryServices in Thailand. IN Conference paperson National Library of Thailand. Bangkok:National Library, 1992. P. 103-109.

47

International Bibliographic Control asseen from perspective of libraries inSouthern Africa

Joseph Chaka MbirizahChief Cataloguer - University of ZimbabweLibrary

The availability of country’s publications in theinternational arena enhances national pride andcultural identity. How then does a countryensure the visibility and availability of itspublications to the rest of the world? Theremust be ways of making known thesepublications for the present and futuregenerations. Most countries in the world/internationally have enacted legislators for thecollection of publications issued in theircountries to ensure that the publications reachthe international audience. Each of thesecountries which have the legal depositlegislations, have in turn appointed/designatedone or more libraries as custodians ofpublications issued. These libraries, normallynational libraries, are tasked not only to collectand preserve these publications, but also to listthem in some order. This process is thebeginning of bibliographic control. The listing ofthese information sources ideally should be donein a systematic way which helps us find our wayin the enormous amount of information. Bylisting information sources issued in a country,then a bibliography of that country is created.This bibliography should endeavor to list allsources of information published andunpublished.

It is at this point we should start talking of therole which libraries and information centresshould play in the compilation of bibliographies.Bibliographies give us information about the

existence and location of information sourcesregionally, nationally and internationally. Theprocess of compiling bibliographies involves thedescription of information sources. Thedescription tells us only about the author,edition, place of publication, publisher, the dateof publication, form and any other particularswhich are necessary to identify the sourcewithout doubt. Librarians have internationallyagreed and accepted to describe informationsources when compiling bibliographies in auniform manner for the purpose which allowsfor co-operative sharing of information.

By listing information in a systematic and similarway, we are creating a bibliography which willbe used as a bibliographic control tool since it isa device/instrument which is used forbibliographic control. Most libraries in SouthernAfrican countries compile a bibliographic entryaccording to the second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) for eachlegal deposit source received by the national ordeposit libraries. The subject matter of thesource is also identified in the description, and isdone by using the rules of a classificationscheme, for example Library of Congress orDewey Decimal Classification.

The major aim of bibliographic control is to listinformation sources described in a systematicmanner to enable us to become aware of whatinformation is available, and where it can belocated (1) (p42). The problem of bibliographiccontrol is the vast amount of informationavailable in the world today. Just imagine whatyou see in your local bookstore, these are only afraction of what is available for sale world-wideand is only for consumption by the generalpublic. What happens to those sources notgenerally found in book shops, sources such asgovernment publications, publications oforganization, research reports, conference

48

proceedings, information services and worsestill unpublished materials. This vast amount ofinformation makes complete bibliographiccontrol, i.e. Universal bibliographic controlunattainable.

Unesco has played a major part in encouragingcountries to contribute to the attainment ofUniversal bibliographic Control (UBC) by firststriving for national bibliographic control. ThirdWorld countries face problems of social,political and economic nature, professionalmanpower for acquiring the sources andcompiling bibliographic entries for them andensuring that these bibliographies are nationallyand internationally accessible. If a country is tohave control over information output of theavailable information sources which areissued/created in that country, it needs tolist/record information sources which have beenpublishe in it. This will be known as a nationalbibliography.

Bibliographic scenario in Southern Africa

Southern Africa being part of the developingcountries, is faced with number of barriers increating and maintaining bibliographic control(2) (p46). The expense of maintainingbibliographic control system in poor economies,manpower requirements and lack of co-operation nationally, regionally andinternationally are some of the problems faced.In Southern Africa, most countries are reliantupon legal deposit sources for the compilationof national bibliographies. The legal depositlegislations in countries of Southern Africa aremore or less the same, with one or two differingin waht should be covered under legal deposit. Iwill look at each of the Southern Africancountries’ situation. Each of the SouthernAfrican countries has designated one or twolibraries as legal deposit libraries. The libraries

aim at recording the cultural heritage in theircountries for present and future generations.

South Africa

In South Africa, two national libraries weredesignated as legal deposit libraries i.e. at StateLibrary in Pretoria and the South AfricanLibrary in Cape Town. The two libraries areresponsible for the bibliographic activities, byrelying upon legal deposit sources for thecompilation of the South African Nationalbibliography (SANB). Their functions aredefined in the National Libraries Act, No.56 of1985, which came into effect on 1 August 1987.The Information sources covered by legaldeposit in South Africa include books,pamphlets comprising more than five pages,maps, technical reports, some governmentpublications, periodicals, South African Bureauspecifications, and microforms.

The SANB is a quarterly compilation, with thefourth quarter comprising an annual cumulation.The arrangement of the bibliography isaccording to Anglo-American cataloguing(AACR2) and classified using DDC. InSouthern Africa, SANB is regarded as the mostdetailed and efficiently produced in everyrespect. Its frequency allows for currency as it isquarterly. The limitation in SANB is that not allgovernment publications are included, thusleaving valuable information such asParliamentary papers. The Act aslo fails toinclude unpublished material as well aspublications by South Africans and about SouthAfrica emanating outside South Africa.

Zimbabwe

Bibliographic activities in Zimbabwe are reliantupon the legal deposit sources for compilationof the Zimbabwe National Bibliography (ZNB).

49

the Libraries have been tasked to collect andpreserve information sources under the PrintedPublications Act, and these are the NationalArchives of Zimbabwe and the BulawayoNational Free Library. The compilation of theZNB is done by the National Archives ofZimbabwe. Material covered by the legaldeposit are more less the same as the SouthAfrican situation, and the compilation is similar.

Other Southern African countries

The other Southern African countries includeMalawi, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia andSwaziland. They also follow the same approachas in South Africa and Zimbabwe relying onlegal deposit legislation in their respectivecountries for the compilation of Nationalbibliographies. The main sequence consists ofbibliographic descriptions according to AACR2and classified using DDC and the sequence isaccompanied by an alphabetical author/titleindex, and include a list of publishers.

These Southern African countries contribute toUniversal bibliographic Control (UBC) throughtheir National bibliographies. The extent towhich national bibliographies are compileddepends largely on the publishing output of thecountry which in turn is dependent on economicdevelopment. As to what should be included inthe national bibliography rests with eachcountry’s legal deposit law : whether thecoverage is to be as comprehensive as possible,or whether there is to be a selection ofcategories of material. Usually the decisionregarding comprehensive or selective coverageis the question of national imprint.

The Namibian situation is some what different.There is no legal deposit legislation in Namibia.However, efforts have been made in the past bythe German Colonial Association, and recently

by Eckhard Strohmeyer to provide somecoverage of Namibian publications. None ofthese has been particularly comprehensive orproduced on a regular basis, and none of thesecan claim to have been intended as anythingnearing a national bibliography. Strohmeyer’swork covers monographs, pamphlets, andjournal articles of Namibian interest, publishedanywhere in the world. The work Strohmeyerproduces is a step in the right direction, and allwhat remains is to provide legal deposit law toenhance to compilation of a nationalbibliography.

There are constraints facing Southern AfricanLibraries responsible for compiling nationalbibliographies as regards the collection andacquisition of national imprint. Although thelegal deposit laws are in place, there are nomechanisms in place to ensure that publisherscomply with the law. With the advent ofDesktop Publishing (DTP) more and moreinformation continue to flood the book trade. Ifnobody chases these up then such publishedmaterial are left out of the national bibliography.Theses and dissertations from local Universitiescontinue to be awarded which are importantinformation sources of original work and crucialfor social, political and economic development.These are often left out as they are not coveredunder the legal deposit legislation.

The other constraint in national imprints is thatthe publishers either publish titles that havebeenproduced in the developed world already. Theyproduce impressions of books, hence there arenotreally "national imprints".

Ideally, governments should set aside funds forthe acquisitions of material for the compilationof national bibliographies. Only in this way canwe ensure comprehensive nationalbibliographies.

50

Reference

1. Behrens, S.J. : Bibliographic control and informationsources, 2nd ed. Pretoria : University of SouthAfrica, 1994.

Bibliography

1. Behrens, S.J.: Bibliographic control and informationsources, 2nd ed. Pretoria : University of SouthAfrica, 1994.

2. Beaudiquez, M.: National bibliography as witness ofnational memory in IFLA journal - Vol.18 (1992)No.2,p.119-123.

3. Gorman, G.E. and Mahoney, M.M.: Guide to currentnational bibliographies in the Third World, Oxford ;Zell, 1984.

51

Harmonizing Bibliographic Controlof Serials in the Digital Age

Regina Romano Reynolds,July 31, 1998

Introduction

"For complexity and instability, serials take thebibliographic biscuit," wrote Jim Vickery ofthe British Library.(1) That statement wasmade before the existence of electronic serialson the Web in all their forms and formats andremains ever more true in this era ofproliferating digital resources andinternationalization of cataloging. In this paperI will examine two forces acting upon thebibliographic control of serials today: thedesire to harmonize international standardsand practices, and the impact of electronicserials: serials with new and rapidly evolvingpublication and presentation patterns whichchallenge the very premises on which ourstandards for serials have been built.

Serials have always been inherently difficult tocatalog because the cataloger is usuallydescribing the whole from only a part, andbecause everything about future issues of aserial is subject to change, even the title. Forelectronic serials, even back issues are subjectto change, since already-published materialcan be re-formatted at the whim of thepublisher. No wonder that libraries throughoutthe world are turning increasingly to recordsharing, copy cataloging, and contractcataloging in order to help control publications- serials included - at the least cost. However,one of the hindrances to increased recordsharing - especially internationally - is theprofusion of different bibliographic controlrules and practices throughout the world.

Harmonization of Standards

There are three principal areas forharmonization of standards for serials:ISBD(S), national and multi-nationalcataloging codes, and ISSN rules andpractices. In a rare alignment of bibliographicplanets, three key standards: AACR2, ISBD(S)and the ISDS Manual are all currentlyundergoing revision. Since my catalogingbackground is in AACR, I will use it as anexample when cataloging codes are discussed.However, many of the challenges facing thoserevising AACR2 are the same challenges thoseexamining other codes as well as ISBD(S) andISSN rules need to face. Just as an alignmentof the planets used to portend momentoushappenings, I believe that the fact that thesethree standards are undergoing revisionsimultaneously could portend momentousbibliographic developments.

All three revision groups have an interest inharmonization. The ISBD(S) revision processbegan in April 1998 with a meeting of IFLA’sISBD(S) Working Group. The WorkingGroup’s charge includes, "achievesharmonization with the draft revision of theISSN Manual, including ISO standard 3297[the ISSN standard] and takes intoconsideration developing ISSN Networkpractices for electronic publications" whileanother item in the charge calls for taking intoaccount "contemporaneous definition andtheory of seriality". It was noted in theWorking Group minutes that in Germany,"they are eager to harmonize [variant rules andstandards] because it is currently necessary tocatalog serials twice". AACR2 revision forserials began following the October 1998"Conference on the Principles and FutureDevelopment of AACR" when the JointSteering Committee for AACR (JSC) chargedJean Hirons and CONSER to developproposals for rule revisions regarding"seriality". The JSC also mandated

52

harmonization with ISBD(S) and ISSN rules.ISSN Network directors will discuss revisionof the ISDS Manual at their meeting inSeptember 1998. Among the topics to bediscussed are "seriality" practices for thecreation of ISSN records, and practicesregarding electronic serials. Duringdiscussions at the 1997 directors meeting,support was expressed for harmonization ofpractices.

Certainly these simultaneous revision effortsrepresent events that seldom coincide. Andcertainly a rare harmonization opportunity isupon us. Harmonization would have manybenefits: serials would have to be catalogedonly once instead of twice as is now the casein many countries (e.g., Germany): once tocreate separate records for the nationalbibliography and once for ISSN registration.Bibliographic records for serials could beshared internationally more widely and moreeasily. Bibliographic databases could bemerged and international union list projectssuch as the Italian Casa Project could becarried out more accurately and with muchless work. The ISSN would become a betteridentifier for library use since one librarycatalog record would always equal one ISSN(at present serious problems are causedbecause one ISSN can be appropriate formultiple catalog records and one catalogrecord can encompass multiple ISSN). Finally,countries such as the U.S., Canada, Spain, andNorway which create only one record for bothISSN registration and their nationalbibliographies could stop having to choosebetween violating either their own catalogingrules or the prescriptions of the ISDS Manualin order to use one record for both purposes.

Challenges of Electronic Resources

Once upon a time, the bibliographic world wasmuch more black and white than it is today:we had monographs and we had serials; and

serialists pretty well knew a serial when theysaw one. Although a grey area in betweenmonographs and serials always existed (e.g.,loose-leaf publications), it was relatively smallone. But, with the current explosion inelectronic publishing, new forms (such as Webpages) have appeared and many old forms(such as journals) are behaving in new anddifferent ways, to the point where CrystalGraham has jokingly characterized electronicserials as "serials on drugs".(2) Besides theirability to incorporate hypertext links, sound,and even video, some e-journals publisharticles one at a time, ignoring the need forissues. Others which do arrange articles intoissues, nonetheless might not present thejournal title anywhere on the issues, nor on thearticles either. The only place on an e-journalthat the title (and often other publishinginformation) might appear is on a home pagewhich serves as the introductory page to all ofthe contents on the Web site. This presents aproblem for description (no current or earliestissue to describe from) but an even greaterproblem when the title on the home page isreplaced by a new title, leaving nothing onlinewith the old title.

Another problem presented by electronicresources is that some publications, such asabstracting and indexing services or annualdirectories, are issued in parts (books,volumes, issues, etc.) in print and have thusbeen treated as serials but when they are putonline they take a database format withseamless updating and no visible parts. Somealso see the a trend toward scholarly journalsmerging to become databases of articlespublished under the auspices of commercialaggregators or scholarly societies. Becausethey are not published in parts, they do notmeet the current definition of serial, so boththe A&I databases and the scholarly databasesthus become - at least by current definitions -monographs, causing confusion for patronsand librarians alike. Finally, the electronic age

53

has brought us entirely new types ofresources, such as Web sites and discussionlists, which one isn’t even sure can be calledpublications. So now we are leftcontemplating the "seriality" problem: in thisnew environment just what is a serial?

Thus, both the desire to harmonize standardsand to accommodate the challenges presentedby electronic serials are confronting serialiststoday. In the following sections I will examinethe issues confronting those who wouldharmonize serial standards while at the sametime revising these standards (harmoniously!)to accommodate electronic resources.

Seriality

Currently, ISBD(S), AACR2, and the ISDSManual all define serials in terms of successiveparts, usually numbered. However, as notedabove, volumes and issues are disappearingfrom some online serials. Should paper-basedserials turn into electronic monographs?Should electronic journals which are notdivided into issues be cataloged asmonographs? If not, how can our issue-basedcataloging rules handle them? Do we need athird category of publication, in addition tomonograph and serial?

"Issues Related to Seriality" written for theConference on the Principles and FutureDevelopment of AACR by Jean Hirons andCrystal Graham (3) takes the question, “Whatis a serial”? as one of its chief topics. Hironsand Graham rejected the idea of a thirdcategory as being difficult to integrate into thecurrent bibliographic infrastructure, andperhaps as only complicating decision-makingfor catalogers and searching for patrons andreference librarians. Instead, Hirons andGraham introduced the concept of the"Ongoing publication" as a solution to themonograph/serial dichotomy. This concept hassince been refined several times. The current

model, “Modified Model C” developed byJean Hirons and Regina Reynolds, (4) dividespublications into two categories: Finite andOngoing. Finite publications are complete asissued or complete in a predetermined numberof parts. This category includes books, multi-volume monographs (whether complete orincomplete), irregularly or infrequently reviseddirectories and text books, as well aselectronic texts. "Ongoing" is an umbrellacategory which encompasses both traditionalserials and other kinds of publications whichextend over time. It does not rely on theintention that these publications will continueindefinitely but rather on the idea that theirend cannot be predicted.

Just what does the creation of the Ongoingumbrella accomplish? To begin with, it coversgaps in AACR2 by accommodating types ofpublications which are not covered at all, suchas loose-leafs, databases, and Web sites. Also,having this overall category keeps the rules formanifestations of an Ongoing work in variousmedia together. The Ongoing conceptrecognizes that potential for change appliesmore broadly than the narrow category ofserials, and it may provide (via itssubcategories) the basis for determining thenumber of records to cover title changes. Itprovides an overall common treatment for theongoing nature of the publications itencompasses but also allows for some areas ofdifferent treatment, where appropriate, for thevarious types of Ongoing publications.Finally, this concept has appealed to manybecause it recognizes seriality without makingeverything a serial. Under this model it isexpected that the basic treatment of traditionalserials will remain fundamentally the same as itis now, even though recommendations forchanges in some descriptive practices arebeing considered.

54

The Model

Let us now take a closer look at the modelproposed by Hirons and Reynolds. Thecategory "Ongoing" is subdivided into twosubcategories which are defined in terms oftheir publication pattern, or what Hirons andGraham call their "form of issuance". The firstsubcategory is called Successive with DiscreteParts. These are publications which aredivided into parts, such as issues or volumes,which remain discrete and which have asuccession of title sources (e.g., title pages,covers, etc.) over time. This category includesserials and series. The second category iscalled "Integrating". These are publications inwhich new material is seamlessly integratedinto the existing material so there are nodivisions into issues or parts. Integratingpublications have only one source of title atany time, but the title on this source maychange over time. This category encompassesloose-leaf services, databases, and Web sites.Form of issuance was chosen as the basis fordetermining the two main categories ofOngoing publications because it has such agreat influence on the description of serials.The model permits new categories at any levelto be added as new types of publications arise.

If bibliographic standards for serials are to beharmonized internationally, some agreementwill need to be reached on the scope of eachstandard: should it cover traditional serials, thebroader realm of "Ongoing" publications, oronly certain types of Ongoing publications? Asalready noted, AACR, ISBD(S), and ISSNgroups all have this topic on their discussionagendas.

Extent of One Record

Another critical key to record sharing andcompatibility is that different standards shouldagree on what one serial record covers. Atpresent, because of different entry conventions

and different title change rules, what iscovered on one ISSN record may berepresented on multiple AACR2 records, andvarying numbers of records under ISBD(S)and under other cataloging codes. ISSN rulesdo not use the concept of "main entry" but, infact, in the ISSN database all serials areentered under key title, a constructed form ofthe title which is the same as the title proper ifthe title proper is unique, or which is madeunique by the addition of qualifyinginformation. Many cataloging codes, such asAACR2, specify main entry under corporatebody, or even personal author, for at leastsome serials but not all codes specify the samekind of entry for the same kind of publication.When main entries change, new records arerequired. ISBD(S) is concerned withdescription alone but does specify "majorchanges" which call for a new description(0.1.3) as well as minor changes in title properand statement of responsibility that do notrequire a new description (7.1.1.6 and7.1.5.4). One of the challenges forharmonization is the need for agreementamong the standards about which changes(defining major and minor changes) to whichelements (title? statement of responsibility?edition statement? numbering? format?)require a new description and which do not.

One potential solution (5) is to make the keytitle the benchmark for determining both theextent of the publication to cover on onerecord and the benchmark for determining titlechanges. That is, when the key title changes ina major way, a new description is required. Ifthis proposal were accepted by catalogingcodes, it would mean that either the key titlewould have to be the main entry for all serials,or that when a main entry such as a corporateor personal heading changed, a newdescription would not be created unless thekey title needed to be changed as well. Thislatter case might be so confusing as to beunacceptable or unworkable.

55

Adoption of the key title as the main entry forserials would require compromises andresolution of several nettlesome issues. First,codes that specify entry for some serials underpersonal or corporate author would have to bechanged. Second, rules for the constructionand use of a "uniform title", such as is used inAACR2 (Rule 25.5B) would have to bemerged with rules for the construction and useof key titles. In fact, these two constructs arevery similar, and have been getting moresimilar according to Alex Bloss in a recentarticle in Serials Review. (6). Although Blosssays of uniform titles and key titles that "theirbasic functions remain different", I believe thisis too strong a statement. In fact, althoughuniform titles are used only when needed todistinguish between publications bearing thesame title, and key titles are created to identifyuniquely all titles in the ISSN system, whereboth are present, both do serve the samefunction. And where a serial in AACR2 isentered under a title proper which is alreadyunique, the key title is probably the same (orcould be depending on cataloger’s judgment)as the title proper.

Nonetheless, some changes in the key titlemight be required, both in how it isconstructed and in those situations thatconstitute major and minor changes requiringnew records and ISSN. There would be theneed to take into account not only currentpractices but also recommendations beingproposed for AACR2 revision, for example,the possibility of considering additions ordeletions of frequency words in titles to beminor changes. The form of the issuing body -when needed as a qualifier for generic titles -is a significant issue. ISSN rules state that thebody name be transcribed in the form andsequence in which is appears on the piecewhile AACR2 prescribes using the establishedheading form. However, ISSN rules also offerthe opportunity to use the body name asestablished by national cataloging practice to

libraries in the CONSER program. If thisexception were to be extended beyondCONSER, U.S. libraries might find use of thekey title as main entry more acceptable. As itis now constructed, there is concern that useof the body name as it appears on the piecedoes not result in a predictable access pointand does not allow for orderly machine filing.

Finally, use of the key title as either main entryor title change benchmark would requiretimely access to the ISSN database. The debutof Web access to the ISSN Register is plannedfor August 1998. Also needed would beprocedures for catalogers to create aprovisional key title which could be usedpending the assignment of a key title by anISSN center. Despite the considerablechallenges to be overcome in making the keytitle the determinant of the extent of recordsand title changes, the benefits to be realized byharmonizing just this one practice would beespecially rewarding because it would result inrecords with the same coverage under all threestandards. This is probably the single mostsignificant area to harmonize in order toachieve record sharing, more effective unionlists, and more extensive ISSN use by libraries.

Handling Title Changes

Once all parties have agreed on "What is aserial"? and "What constitutes a title change"?there remains what I believe to be an evenmore monumental challenge: how to handletitle changes. Traditional choices for handlingtitle changes include earliest entry (onedescription for all title changes, the earliesttitle remains the title proper, notes are madeabout later titles); latest entry (one descriptionfor all title changes, the title proper alwaysreflects the current title, notes are made aboutearlier titles); and successive entry ( a newdescription is made for each title change).Although successive entry is prescribed byAACR2 and other codes, ISBD(S), and ISSN

56

rules, handling title changes for Ongoingpublications such as loose-leaf services,databases, and electronic journals which arenot successively issued forces us to considerhow to handle title changes in cases where theold title may completely disappear. Eventhough it might be desirable in nationalbibliographies to retain records for the oldtitles, many librarians do not feel it isappropriate to have records in their catalogsfor titles which no longer exist. Some of theselibrarians feel latest entry is the way to handlethese situations, which is how many in theU.S. already catalog looseleafs, followingAdele Hallam’s Cataloging Rules forBibliographic Description of LooseleafPublications (Library of Congress, 1989).

Latest vs Successive

Since latest and successive are the entryconventions most under consideration for usewith electronic resources, I will discuss thepros and cons of each. Successive entryrecords are shorter and simpler than latestentry records, which can become very longand complex for publications of long duration.The one title per record approach used insuccessive entry facilitates linking and addingholdings to records. Successive entry causesfewer problems in cooperative databases andunion catalogs because libraries can add theirholdings to only those titles represented intheir catalogs. However, successive entryresults in multiple records for what manyperceive to be the same publication and alsocan result in what some feel is a higherworkload: the need to create a new record foreach title change.

In addition to complicating the creation ofcooperative databases and union lists, thereare other drawbacks to latest entry, especiallyfor the ISSN Network. If cataloging codes andISBD(S) were to accept latest entry forIntegrating publications (e.g., electronic

journals without issues), the ISSN Networkwould be faced with two options if it decidedto assign ISSN such publications; both optionswould cause problems. If the decision were tocontinue assigning a new ISSN when the titlechanged, then in countries which used onerecord for both ISSN and the nationalbibliography (an increasing trend whichharmonization would accelerate) ISSN centerswould have to create a separate record toassign ISSN to Integrating publications since itis impossible to create a coherent set ofsuccessive records from one latest entryrecord.

Alternatively, the ISSN Network might decideto not assign a new ISSN for title changes toIntegrating entities, thus creating a new set ofproblems. To begin with, could publishersunderstand the ISSN Network’s use ofdifferent title change rules for different serials?Would retaining the same ISSN through titlechanges be compatible with other identifierswhich incorporate the ISSN, such as the SICI(Serial Item and Contribution Identifier) andpotentially the DOI (Digital Object Identifier)?Most challenging of all would be the probleman ISSN center would face in trying todetermine, each time they received an ISSNrequest for an Integrating publication, whetherit had already assigned an ISSN to thatpublication under an earlier title - a title whichcould possibly be two or even three titlesback. With changes in publishing houses andmovement of titles from one publisher toanother, publishers often do not know the titlehistory of their publications. Although ISSNcenters do not always know now when a serialhas had an earlier title, the most serious resultis a missing link. Under latest entry, theconsequence of not knowing an earlier titlewould be a duplicate ISSN assignment. Manysuch duplicate assignments could seriouslythreaten the integrity of the ISSN system.

57

How Many Conventions?

An alternative to both latest and successiveentry proposed during AACR2 revisiondiscussions is a new concept called"incorporating entry" by Sara Shatford Layneof UCLA.(7) Under this convention - thedetails of which are still in development - anew record would be created each time thetitle of, for example, an electronic journal notpublished in issues changed. Although newrecords for title changes are also created undersuccessive entry, the main difference forincorporating entry is that, as in latest entrycataloging, the start date of the new record isthe start date of the earliest title ever held bythe publication, with the earlier title(s) listed asnotes and access points. The use of the earliestdate reflects the fact that each new recordrepresents the entire run of the serial. Thus,national bibliographies could contain all therecords for the different titles ever held by thepublication, while local libraries could chooseto retain only the record for the most recenttitle, a record which would have access pointsfor the earlier title or titles. This approach isstill very much under discussion and concernshave been expressed about its complexity,about the need to maintain more records thanunder latest entry, and about the possibilitythat libraries might not contribute records forchanged titles to national or internationaldatabases, but simply change the title on theirexisting record, creating a latest entry record.

A particular concern when considering theseoptions is the question of just how manydifferent conventions for handling title changescan be operating simultaneously in one systemor database? Can we handle both latest andsuccessive entry at the same time? My opinionis that mixing latest and successive entry inone database would be extremely difficult andconfusing. In database terms, some recordswould represent one object, other recordswould represent more than one object. Start

dates would have one meaning on latest entryrecords and another meaning on successiveentry records. If a title were published in bothprint and online database form, the recordsmight each be created according to differentconventions and would look very different.Linking between the different records could bea nightmare. If we were to add Incorporatingentry to this mix, and use it for electronicjournals which did not have separate issues,would we then go beyond any cataloger’sability to use the rules, and any patron’s orreference librarian’s ability to interpret ourcatalogs? Handling title changes for Ongoingpublications therefore becomes anotherchallenging but crucial area for resolution andharmonization.

Basis of the Description

And finally we come to issues relating simplyto description. The first of these issuesconcerns "What is the basis of thedescription"? To begin with, should a serial’sdescription be taken primarily (as is the caseunder AACR2 and ISBD(S)) from one issue,or should it be taken from the serial as awhole? Should there be a "chief source" fromwhich a serial’s description is taken? If thedescription is taken from one issue, shouldthat issue be the earliest or the most recent?ISBD(S) and AACR2 prescribe the earliestissue as the basis for describing current serials.However, ISBD(S) explicitly givesinstructions for the prescribed sources ofinformation for ceased serials (0.5.2.2) whichspecify for various areas, use of the first issue,the first and last issues, or the wholepublication. This is an explicit and helpfulinstruction from which AACR2 could benefit.ISSN rules specify constructing the key titleand description from the issue in hand at thetime of ISSN registration, and at least attemptto keep the place of publication and publishercurrent, a desire frequently expressed by U.S.reference and acquisitions librarians.

58

Questions concerning the basis of thedescription become even more complex in theelectronic world. Title pages and covers havebeen replaced by home pages, which do notfollow the bibliographic tradition at all.Bibliographic elements are scatteredthroughout an online serial. For this and otherreasons, in the Hirons/Graham paper thefollowing recommendation is made. "Forongoing publications, replace the concept of‘chief source’ with that of ‘source of title’.Allow greater flexibility in the selection of thetitle within the parameters of the prescribedsources. Define new terminology for sourceswithin online publications". The ISBD(S)Review Group charge states, "Reconsiders thepropriety of basing the bibliographicdescription for serials on the first issue to bepublished and the concept of ‘chief source’ forserials". It is to be hoped that as these issuesare discussed within the AACR, ISBD(S), andISSN revision processes, harmonization of thekey issues noted above will be possible.

Identification vs. Transcription

ISBD(S) and many cataloging codes such asAACR2 call for transcription in various areasof the record - that is, recording the exactwords that appear on the publication beingcataloged. The practice of transcription, nodoubt, is helpful for the differentiation ofeditions in books, and especially for thecataloging of rare materials. For serials,however, transcription from one issue out of arun of possibly hundreds is less useful. ISSNrules focus more on including in the ISSNrecord bibliographic elements which willidentify a serial and help to distinguish it fromother serials. An example of divergentpractices for identifying vs. transcribing can beseen in the rules dealing with misprints.AACR2 says (in rule 1.0F1) that for areasrequiring transcription, inaccuracies are to betranscribed as they appear. ISSN rules for the

key title (which is admittedly a construct), sayto correct inaccuracies and not even notethem. ISBD(S) takes a somewhat middleground in stating (0.10), "Inaccuracies ormisspelled words are transcribed as theyappear in the issue described as well as thoseoccurring in the publication as a regularfeature. Misprints occurring accidentally in anissue are ignored or may be given in area 7(notes)".

Another example of the ISSN practice ofidentifying rather than transcribing occurs inhow the publisher is recorded. For example, ifon an issue the words, "Published for theAstrophysical Society by the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology" appeared, thosewords would be transcribed as the publisherstatement in AACR2. However, for the ISSNrecord, all that should appear as the publisheris California Institute of Technology. Isolatingthe name of the publisher in the publisher fieldof the record allows for clearer identification,for searching by publisher name, and forcreating listings by publisher.

For electronic publications, the concept oftranscription becomes even more difficult. Atleast for print serials, the issues that have beenpublished remain the same for all time so thatexact transcription can sometimes be helpful inresolving problems. However, electronicpublications can change retrospectively as wellas prospectively. Issues that were publishedearlier may all be reformatted to show acurrent title and publisher, or perhaps there areno issues and the home page changessporadically both to display a new design aswell as new information. To compound theproblem of transcription for electronicpublications, at times what the reader sees isdependent on his hardware and software suchas Web browsers. For example, browsers thatare "frames capable" will show one design,while an alternate design is provided for olderbrowsers that are not capable of displaying

59

frames. Exact transcription may not always bepossible, and even when it is, it does notalways serve to provide the best information.

In their paper Hirons and Graham recommend:"For ongoing publications, create rules thatfocus on identification rather thantranscription". Identification is a concept thatalready underlies ISSN rules and practices.The ISBD(S) Review Group charge states,"Considers areas of description in whichidentification of data may be more desirablethan transcription". Thus the stage seems setto pursue harmonization in this area.

Changes in the Description

It is more than just an oxymoron to say thatone of the few constants about serials ischange. It is the nature of serials to change,but cataloging codes and ISBD(S) generallydo not discuss change except in regard toserials. One of the benefits of the Ongoingconcept is that is provides a framework forcreating rules that deal with change which canbe applied to a wider range of publicationsthan traditional serials.

However, it will be important forharmonization efforts that ISBD(S), thevarious cataloging codes, and ISSN ruleshandle changes in description as similarly aspossible. This may be a challenge for ISSNrules in particular since the ISSN record, beinglanguage neutral, has no note fields. Changesin imprint and frequency are handled byreplacing earlier information with more currentinformation, minor title changes are handled invariant title fields. Those proposing AACR2revisions are considering putting both currentand former publishers in the imprint or in arelated area rather than just in a note.

Multiple Manifestations/Versions of aWork

The IFLA Study Group on the FunctionalRequirements for Bibliographic Records(FRBR) (8) proposed a four-tiered modelconsisting of "works" (the intellectualconstruct); "expressions" in various forms;physical "manifestations", and actual “items"held within a library. This model provides theterminology and means to analyze the growingproblem of how to treat serials in multiplemanifestations or versions. Although theFRBR Model does not use the term "version",I use it here to refer works in different physicalformats which also differ in content,presentation, or functionality. Rules forhandling serials issued in multiple physicalmanifestations and versions are largely lackingin AACR2 and ISBD(S). Current ISSNpractice is to assign a separate ISSN to eachdifferent physical form. Thus, harmonization inthis area will require development ofcataloging rules where they are lacking andreconciliation of those rules with current orfuture ISSN practice. Martha Yee of UCLA isworking on this area with an ALA CC:DA0.24 Task Force. (AACR2 Rule 0.24 statesthat a serial should be described from thephysical carrier).

The problems presented by multiplemanifestations and versions of serials are sonumerous that they could well form the topicof a separate paper. Simply determining if thecontent of one physical form of a serial is thesame as the content of another is a challenge.Even if the content is the same in the twoissues compared, it may diverge in futureissues. Another question is whether toconsider different formats, such as HTML,ascii or PDF to be different manifestationsand, most important of all, should all differentmanifestations require different descriptions?

60

Some favor a tiered record solution such asthat proposed in the Multiple Versions ForumReport, (9) with a basic description andattached records which differ at themanifestation level. Others, such as manyCONSER libraries, seem happy withCONSER’s "one record option" which allowsthe URL for an online serial to be added to therecord for the print version of that serial. Inthis case, the print record still represents theprint publication, it just also serves as anaccess point for the online version. However,different versions often have distinctidentifying information and really requireseparate descriptions. Nonetheless, manyreference librarians feel patrons are onlyconfused by separate records and manyadministrators feel they can’t afford the cost ofcreating separate records.

My own opinion is that separate records arethe best solution. To provide patrons withunderstandable displays and to reduce thecosts of creating separate catalog records, Ibelieve that we can look to systems designersfor solutions. If a "front end" to systems couldbe designed to create the multiple records fordifferent formats from one input session andto pull together the multiple records for thedifferent formats into a single combined publicdisplay, then we might have the best of bothworlds. The solution to this "multipleversions" problem will not be an easy one.However, if any solution is possible, thatsolution will be much more valuable if themajor serials standards agree.

Challenges for the ISSN Network

Although the functions of the ISSN recordare different than those of a bibliographicrecord, ISSN records can form the foundationfor the national bibliographic record, andincreasingly they are being made to do so.Therefore, harmonization of ISSN practiceswith those of national bibliographic agencies is

crucial to international catalogingharmonization. One of the most fundamentalquestions the ISSN Network has to decidesoon is the future scope of the ISSN.Following is a summary of the questions onthe topic of seriality I have proposed for thedirectors of ISSN centers to discuss at theirSeptember 1998 meeting.

To which types of electronic publicationsshould ISSN be assigned? (Serials as currentlydefined? Electronic journals? Databases?Web sites?). Can the ISSN Network afford tonot include some types of electronicpublications and still remain viable in the faceof DOI, URN, etc.? What will be theconsequences if AACR2 and ISBD(S) changeand ISSN rules do not? Should we handle allelectronic journals alike whether they arepublished in issues or not? If ISSN areassigned to any Integrating Entities (databases,some electronic journals, Web sites) how willwe handle title changes? (Successive entry, amix of latest and successive, latest, successiveand incorporating, some other option). Asnoted, additional discussions will addressrevision of the ISDS Manual, electronicserials, and the assignment of separate ISSNto multiple manifestations and versions ofserials.

Conclusion

Harmonization of standards for thebibliographic control of serials presents aformidable challenge. There are numerousissues to be resolved as well as harmonized.As we have seen, these include: seriality,extent of the record, handling title changes,descriptive issues, multiple manifestations andversions, and ISSN issues. Completeharmonization may never be possible.However, even harmonization in one or twokey areas, such as seriality and extent of therecord, would go a long way towards

61

facilitating record sharing and merging ofdatabases.

Electronic serials, both by their proliferationand by their unpredictable evolution, arepresenting serialists with unusual challenges.However, the fact that we face thesechallenges in a time of increasing internationalcooperation means that no one country orstandards group needs to solve these problemson its own. Instead, we can bring thecollective intelligence and creativity of theinternational cataloging community to bear onthese problems. As a result, we will have theopportunity to solve the problems in the bestpossible way, and to obtain a harmonizedresult that will help relieve the catalogingburden we all face.

Notes

1. Jim Vickery, “CONSER: Serials CataloguingAmerican Style”. Catalogue & Index 101/102(Autumn/Winter 1991): 4.

2. Crystal Graham, ALCTS Serials Section Program,ALA Annual Conference, June 1997.

3. Jean Hirons and Crystal Graham, “Issues Relatedto Seriality”, Conference on the Principles andFuture Development of AACR, October 1997.(Proceedings not yet published)

4. Jean Hirons and Regina Reynolds, “Proposal toAdopt a Modified Model C Approach”, April 1998,CONSER Web site:http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/ModelC.html

5. To read about other proposed solutions, see GunterFranzmeier, “Multiplication of Serial TitlesForever”? Serials Librarian 12:no. 1/2 (1987): 63-72.

6. Alex Bloss, “Uniform Titles for Serials, Key Titles,and The Guidelines for Authority and ReferenceEntries”, Serials Librarian 23:no.4 (1997).

7. Sara Shatford Layne, “ ‘Incorporating Entry’: ANew Approach to Cataloging Electronic Journals”.May 1998, CONSER Web site:

http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/incorp.html

8. Functional Requirements for BibliographicRecords. Final Report. Deutsche Bibliothek,Frankfurt am Main, Germany: IFLA UniversalBibliographic Control and International MARCProgramme, July 1997

9. Multiple Versions Forum, Airlie, Va. 1989,Multiple Versions Forum Report. Washington,D.C.: Network Development and MARC StandardsOffice, Library of Congress, 1990.

PRE-CONFERENCE BOOKLET · 2014. 11. 12. · PRE-CONFERENCE BOOKLET Universal Bibliographic Control and International MARC Core Programme ... Museum of Books and Printing Postbox 2149,

Documents