1B. "Rules of Thumb": JH: "I like the guidelines in the rule of thumb very much. How realistic is it that catalogers are going to examine the content? Can we make it clear that this means just reading over the introductory material for statements from the publisher, not actually comparing the contents? I'm concerned about the impression of work it gives. But I like it in theory."
[Return to CONSER WG Draft Report]
1B3. Change of Format: "I would argue that the 'numbering criteria' is inappropriate."
[Return to CONSER WG Draft Report]
1B3. Change of Format: SS: "... [C]urrently guidelines are having us add 776 on single records when there is a different ISSN assigned for online version.... [O]verlapping issue links should be tagged 780/785 or 776/776 or both 780/785 & 776/776. Personally, ... I'm just trying to make the case for reciprocal ... links."
[Return to CONSER WG Draft Report]
1C. Related electronic serials (original draft: called Related manifestations): JH: "If these really are so different as to be called editions, the heading should be 'related exptressions' (if you're going to use FRBR terminology). We rejected the idea of using 775 some years ago, favoring 776 in all cases, but let's open it to discussion again."
[Return to CONSER WG Draft Report]
1D. Related Sites: Comment1: JH: "Having worked on the 856 indicator values, I'm concerned that the report is not treating "related sites" appropriately. This category is for sites that have some relationship but are not the work itself or a portion of that work. For instance, the web site for the author. If a cite contains tables of contents, index, or other parts of a serial, but not the full text, it is not a 'related site'. It should be coded as 1 (version) using $3 to indicate the parts that are contained. E.g., 856 41 $3 tables of contents $u...
Using this category for the New York Times may be appropriate, but I think it's something we should discuss at the meeting.
Comment2: JH: "1st sentence change 856 42 to 856 41 $3 and call this something other than 'related sites.'
[Return to CONSER WG Draft Report]
3.A. Review CONSER Guidelines: JH: "I'm not sure I'd even want to include this. The idea that anyone would recatalog to AACR2 to add fields such as 007 and 856, which aren't even in AACR2 seems kind of crazy!"
[Return to CONSER WG Draft Report]
4. EXPENSE: JB: "I have one comment to add concerning the last sentence on the "Expense" section. The purpose of the aggregator analytic record which CONSER is designing is that it can be used either as a separate record or information from this record can be gleaned from it and added to the print record. Using the separate record certainly would be less expensive from a maintenance viewpoint, since the individual library would be responsible for the programming required to add the electronic information to its print record. You might also want to add the word "CONSER" in front of "Aggregator Task Force" for clarification."
[Return to CONSER WG Draft Report]
990414; updated 990417