This response message is cross posted to several lists, please excuse
the duplicates.
>>> William C. Anderson <wand@LOC.GOV>  4/21/95, 10:39am >>>
  We welcome comments on any of our policies and documentation;
however, the CCM module is in final draft and the CEG has gone to
print.  We hope that CONSER participants and others will use the
new module and test out the guidelines and then provide feedback.
  Policies/guidelines set forth in the CEG and CCM:
  1.  All document formats are to be included on one record
(i.e., plain text, formatted text and hypertext).  This was the
question we posed to the listserv several months ago.  Most
responses favored the single record approach and we have had
positive feedback from others in LC and at the recent ALCTS
Serials Institute that this seems the best solution for now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's a great decision.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  2.  If there is another physical format (e.g., CD-ROM, print),
we will use a qualifier such as (Online).  Note: we are avoiding
words such as version or ed. because they carry a number of
meanings that can be confusing.  If the other physical format has
a qualifier, the physical medium will be added following the
first qualifier: (San Francisco, CA : Online)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Can CEG and CCM post a sample record to show how each field is
inputted with multiple formats (including print, CD-ROM, Internet
ASCII and hypertext formats)?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  3.  Notes relating to the type of file (e.g., electronic
journal) and the characteristics, including document formats,
will be given in field 516.  Example:  516   Electronic journal
available in ASCII, Postscript, and hypertext
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This decision does not sound very appropriate to me for the
following reasons:

1)  If CONSER wants to put multiple formats on a single record, a
consistent way of dealing with the description of all formats are
important.  According to USMARC format for bibliographic data,
field 538 "contains system information about an item.  Such
information includes ... physical characteristics of a computer
file, ... data such as software programming language, ...  For
videorecordings, information about the trade name or recording
system(s) (VHS, Beta, etc.) ..."
   Different computer file formats are the same type of
information as the examples listed in field 538.  If we input
software programming language and videorecording format in field
538, why shouldn't we use the same field for the file format
information, but rather use a separate field 516 ONLY for the
computer file characteristics?  We should try to make the
application of cataloging rules and MARC formats more simple by
reducing the number of unnecessary separate fields we use, not
try to make it more complicated so as to increase the cataloging
cost.

2)  I believe the theory behind MARC formats is that each field
group of the variable fields (1XX, 2XX, 3XX, etc.) has its unique
meaning, but can be applied to any formats (i.e, remote
resources, physical items).  That's why even though we have books
format, serials format, media format, MRF format, etc., all of
the formats use the same field groups for descriptive cataloging.
Computer file format was not as consistent as other formats when
it was developed.  For example, field 256 and field 516 are only
defined for computer file format and have no use for other
formats, which I believe should be eliminated during format
integration.  We should work on making the same rules for all
formats, so that one day in the future we can really integrate
all formats into one single MARC format and describe all of them
on one record.

3)  I appreciate very much the national efforts to make an
authoritative interpretation of the AACR2 rules and MARC formats
for us.  We simply need a common vision (I believe many
librarians, share the same vision today that we should simplify
cataloging rules, integrate multiple formats, and then save more
cataloging time to do a huge amount of other things) and a
consistent way of doing things.  I wish LC and CONSER can work
together to come up with the same rules and same interpretations,
regardless of what formats we are cataloging on since we are
working in a resource sharing environment.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  4.  CONSER will not use field 256.  Putting "Computer data"
into almost all serial records does not provide useful
information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Some discussions are going on about the merging of field 256 and
field 300, so that the information on file characteristics and
the physical description of an item can use the same field.  What
does CONSER think about this?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  We hope that this information is useful and we thank you for
your earlier responses and suggestions.
  Jean Hirons, Acting CONSER Coordinator
Regina Reynolds, Head, National Serials Data Program
Bill Anderson, CONSER Specialist
Les Hawkins, National Serials Data Program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Vianne Sha
sha@law.missouri.edu
University of Missouri-Columbia
School of Law Library