The CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials) Program has recently developed and published its policies and practices for cataloging remote access computer file serials. Module 31 of the CONSER Cataloging Manual (CCM), "Remote Access Computer File Serials," was drafted by Melissa Beck of UCLA and covers cataloging policies for remote access computer file serials. [1] The module opens with a full discussion of the kinds of online resources CONSER considers to be remote access computer file serials. Also included in the module are policies for periodicals in multiple file formats, the recording of location and access information, and other significant bibliographic information. These policies were developed over many months in consultation with a number of other projects, institutions, offices, and individuals active in the field of networked information and remote access computer file serials.
Module 31 defines a "remote access computer file serial" as follows:
A remote access computer file serial is a work issued in designated parts for an indefinite period of time (i.e., that meets the definition of a serial); and in a machine-readable format, accessed "via input/output devices connected electronically to a computer" (AACR2). This is in contrast to a direct access computer file serial which is issued in a physical carrier, for example CD-ROMs or floppy disks.The most frequently encountered type of remote access serial is an electronic journal or newsletter available through a computer network, such as the Internet. [2]
Module 31 also states that CONSER does not consider the following to be serial publications: list server discussion lists (including digests), catalogs, databases, Gopher and World-Wide Web servers, and other online services.
(The remainder of this paper will use the term "electronic serial" to mean "remote access computer file serial" unless the more specific term is needed for clarity.)
The effort to develop cataloging tools for networked resources and electronic serials spans many years and involves numerous players in different areas of the library community. This has been an ongoing process involving individuals closely attuned to the major developments in the publishing community. Over the years, CONSER has followed the numerous advances in the standards for cataloging electronic serials. With the integration of USMARC bibliographic formats, now in process, serials catalogers will soon be in position to utilize all the computer file bibliographic record elements. CONSER has taken a major step in developing policies for these new elements with the publication of Module 31 of the CCM. We will first present a broad overview of a number of related efforts and developments in the publishing and library communities, and then discuss the development of Module 31 of the CCM and the major issues it addresses.
In the late 1980s, the electronic serials available on the Internet were primarily distributed as ASCII files via discussion lists (direct e-mail or Telnet were sometimes used instead). A variation on this approach was to distribute a table of contents file instead of the entire issue. After reading the table of contents file, the user would access the issue (or separate articles) using e-mail or FTP. Over time, other file formats, such as Adobe Acrobat, PostScript, and WordPerfect were used to supplement or replace ASCII files. This overcame some of the limitations of ASCII files, such as their lack of fonts or graphics.
In the early 1990s, a greater range of Internet technologies were used to distribute or access electronic serials, including Archie, Gopher, USENET newsgroups, and WAIS. Gopher archives were especially important, because they allowed users to easily browse and retrieve current and back issues of electronic serials. WAIS and other searching tools allowed publishers to create searchable databases of their electronic journals.
After the 1993 release of NCSA's Mosaic World-Wide Web browser, overall use of the Web increased dramatically. A variety of other Web browsers, such as Netscape, have subsequently been developed. Widespread use of Web browsers, with their easy-to-use graphical user interfaces, have transformed information distribution on the Internet. Using the Web, publishers can easily distribute hypertext documents with multimedia components to a global audience, and they have been actively experimenting with Web versions of new or existing electronic serials.
This rapid development in the organization and presentation of electronic serials has raised a variety of basic cataloging questions. Internet services, such as discussion lists and World-Wide Web servers, have challenged serials librarians to reconsider aspects of the traditional definition of seriality, especially with regard to citable issues and their designations.
The display of bibliographic information has also become more complex with electronic serials. Often, this information is dispersed over several files, giving catalogers multiple sources for description that can contain different presentations of bibliographic information. The availability of multiple document formats has generated questions about computer file editions and the number of catalog records needed to represent them. Many institutions have also been hesitant to include catalog records for Internet resources because of uncertainty about how to record location and holdings information.
Since the 1980s, problems associated with cataloging electronic serials have received attention at numerous ALA Computer Files Discussion Group meetings. Discussions covered the application of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed. (AACR2), Chapter 9, "Computer Files" [3] and the International Standard Bibliographic Description for Computer Files (ISBD (CF)). [4] Among the issues discussed included an integrated USMARC format that could contain serial and computer file elements in one record; guidelines for implementing AACR2, Chapter 9; and problems associated with electronic access and holdings information.
In June 1991, the ALA Machine Readable Bibliographic Information Committee (MARBI) discussed a number of data elements needed to accommodate the description and access of a broad array of networked resources. [5] The group focused on data resources (e.g., electronic text and data files) as the kind of electronic resources that are more amenable to bibliographic description using AACR2, Chapter 9 and the USMARC bibliographic format. Work was begun to identify specific record elements that could be used to expand the USMARC format to accommodate these resources. This work was later reflected in MARBI Proposal 93-4, which made recommendations for the following elements and fields: 008/26 (type of computer file), 256 (computer file characteristics), 516 (type of computer file or data note), and 856 (electronic location and access).
Changes to the 008/26 fixed-field element that were approved by MARBI include the addition of four "type of file" codes to enhance fixed-field retrieval of various types of computer files.
Recommendations for the 256 field included an expansion of descriptors beyond the three terms now provided for use by AACR2: "computer data," "computer programs," or "computer data and programs." This change was aimed at allowing catalogers to choose user-oriented descriptions of computer files from an open list of descriptors which might include such terms as "electronic newsletter" or "electronic book."
The proposal also recommended making field 516 obsolete since "nature and scope" data is generally provided in a 500 field, and an open list of descriptors available for use in the 256 would provide "type of file" information in a more complete fashion.
The 516 field recommendation was not approved. Nor was the 256 field recommendation, because expansion of the file characteristics field is governed by AACR2, and it requires a change in cataloging rules. The 256 field recommendation was taken up by the ALA Committee for Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) for consideration under a separate proposal.
The following recommendations for changes to the 856 field were approved by MARBI. The proposal advocated that data elements in the 856 field be parsed for portability between systems and formats, with the expectation that systems would provide machine links to the actual publications. It also took into consideration the Internet Engineering Task Force's work on the Universal Resource Locator (URL) and the Universal Resource Name (URN). The URL was later incorporated for use in the 856 field. The MARBI proposal also cited the need for guidelines on the use of AACR2 and USMARC, and it noted the phenomenal rise in the number of electronic serials being published.
The Network Development and MARC Standards Office at the Library of Congress has made available updated guidelines on the use of the 856 field. [6] These guidelines cover its numerous subfields and different indicator values that identify the various modes of access. They now include an expansion of the modes of access that can be identified in the field and new coding for dial access.
On another front, the ISBD (CF) Review Group recently issued a draft of the second edition of the standard that proposes several changes to better handle files available on the Internet. [7] Among the changes is an expanded list of terms for use in the file characteristics area of the record (USMARC field 256). The April 1995 Summary Report of the ISBD (CF) Review Group proposed that "the whole treatment of the designation of file [be] thoroughly reworked and developed, with area 3 (file characteristics area) emerging as the one most thoroughly changed in revised CF." [8] The second edition draft supports continuing use of "computer data" and "computer programs," but includes several lists of additional descriptive terms (e.g., computer journal, computer newsletter, and computer interactive multimedia). One advantage in using this area of the record instead of a note field is the more prominent position of the information which follows the title and edition statements in the record. Development of the field in the ISBD (CF) could increase the likelihood of an expansion of the field in the rules.
OCLC's two Internet projects have been instrumental in focusing librarians' attention on the means and methods for describing electronic serials.
OCLC's first project, which was conducted in 1992, tested existing cataloging tools and focused on the application of AACR2 and USMARC. As part of this cataloging experiment, use of a coded USMARC location and access field for electronic resources was tested. Field 852 from the USMARC Format for Holdings Data was used to record network location information in parsed subfields. The project resulted in MARBI Proposal 93-4, which included a number of recommendations (as outlined above), along with the addition of the 856 field for electronic location and access.
OCLC's 1993 report on the first project, Assessing Information on the Internet, gives a comprehensive analysis of the provision of bibliographic information for a wide range of internet resources, including electronic serials. [9]
A more recent OCLC Internet Cataloging Project, begun in 1995, has also been a driving force in the increase in the number of catalog records created for Internet serials and in the development of consistent guidelines for creating these records. An invitation was sent out for OCLC participants to create records for Internet resources following local collection development policies. In their cataloging guidelines for the project, OCLC refers to CONSER documentation for cataloging remote access serials, including the CONSER Editing Guide (CEG) and Module 31 of the CCM. [10]
With the integration of USMARC bibliographic formats on the horizon in the early 1980s, CONSER developed "interim" guidelines to catalog electronic serials in the serials format. (CONSER catalogers have been restricted to using the serials format because of the record distribution process for the CONSER database.) The guidelines were considered to be "interim" until format integration was complete. The serials format has only recently supported certain computer file fields, with coded information for computer files aspects to become available only after format integration is implemented early in 1996.
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, CONSER members began to fulfill their institutions' policies and commitments regarding electronic serials. The National Serials Data Program (NSDP) and the University of Michigan have led the effort in CONSER. NSDP began to receive requests for the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) and created minimal-level records in the serials format using AACR2, the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI), and the ISDS Manual. [11] NSDP also began to share its experience with other ISSN centers throughout the world. There was active discussion within the ISSN Network whether to assign separate ISSN to electronic versions of print serials. Several centers began to receive ISSN requests for electronic serials and experimented in creating catalog records for them.
By the early 1990s, the University of Michigan also began to contribute records for electronic serials, and it later became involved with creating records for electronic serials archived by a project within the CICNet network. CICNet is an Internet access service connecting institutions in a seven-state region in the Midwest, organized by the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). [12] The CIC Electronic Journals Collection (CIC-EJC), part of the CICNet electronic journal archives, is an authoritative source for electronic research and academic serial publications. The electronic serials available on this archive will be fully cataloged by CICNet members with the bibliographic records contributed to the OCLC Online Union Catalog. CIC-EJC provides a managed approach to gathering and archiving electronic serials on its Gopher and Web servers. Cataloging of the serials archived at the site is now being done with the cooperation of six institutions: University of Michigan, Indiana University, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Wisconsin, University of Minnesota, and Ohio State University. Operating as associate CONSER members under the CIC project, these institutions plan to initially contribute at least 122 full-level records. [13]
The growing number of loosely related projects indicated a real need for consistency and guidance in applying AACR2 and using USMARC coding for this new format of material. In 1994, CONSER initiated the drafting of Module 31 as an opportunity to explore some of the unresolved cataloging issues surrounding electronic serials and to help formulate policies for fields newly available to the serials format. Melissa Beck drafted the module in late 1994. In discussing her work at the November 1994 CONSER Operations Meeting, she raised the following issues:
As an example, the issue of multiple document formats was also raised in CONSER meetings at ALA Midwinter in 1995. The CONSER Electronic Resources Task Force, which was established in the summer of 1994, distributed a January 1995 interim report that discussed the issue and recommended that CONSER develop proposals on this matter. The "multiple formats" issue for catalogers often centers on whether more than one edition is involved when the content of different versions is essentially the same. However, some publications do offer substantial differences in the content of different electronic versions. Postmodern Culture includes articles, identified as "hypermedia," that contain image, sound, or other non-text files in the HTML version that cannot be included in the ASCII version. [14] The HTML version also includes hypertext links for moving to various locations within the publication or to related documents.
To specifically gain insight into the "multiple formats" question, an informal group of CONSER members posted queries to a number of cataloging- and serials-related discussion lists. An initial query was followed by a message that contained catalog record examples showing different treatments for serials in multiple document formats. Included in the message were single records for titles published in multiple formats and available via several access methods. Notes were included in the records to describe file formats and access methods. The message also included a two-record approach for the same titles showing ASCII and PostScript formats described on one record and the HTML format on another.
CONSER also sought feedback and advice on issues identified in early drafts of the module from several offices at the Library of Congress including: the Cataloging Policy and Support Office, the Network Development and MARC Standards Office, the Machine Readable Collections Reading Room, and the Computer Files Team of the Special Materials Cataloging Division. After many months of meetings, online discussions, and reviewing drafts of Module 31, sufficient input and information was available for deciding on how to handle multiple document formats, location and access information, and other significant bibliographic information. What follows are the major issues and how they are addressed in Module 31.
An issue that arose early in the development of Module 31 involved the kinds of online resources that are considered to be "remote access computer file serials." Definitions for "serials" and "remote access computer files" provided in the cataloging rules hardly resolve the issue as to whether some of the new types of electronic resources may be treated as serial publications (e.g., discussion lists). [15] LCRI includes a section that addresses "special types of publications" considered to be serials in certain circumstances (e.g., conferences and loose-leaf publications), without any mention of computer files or electronic serials. [16] Module 31 takes a conservative approach by generally including as serials only publications that retain a print-like approach to designating individual issues (see the definition in Section 1.0). A potential shortcoming with this policy is that fewer new kinds of resources may be represented in the CONSER database. Ongoing efforts by a CONSER Electronic Resources Task Force, in consultation with the CONSER Operations Committee, will address the issue of whether a more inclusive serials definition is appropriate.
Another basic bibliographic consideration involves the question as to whether networked resources are published documents. Guidelines for the first OCLC Internet Resources project brought this issue into focus a few years ago. [17] Current documentation for the ongoing project follows a practical approach that considers all publications offered for access via the Internet as published documents. [18] CONSER endorses this approach as a pragmatic solution that avoids the treatment of online resources as manuscripts. The publication area of the record is then provided, including place of publication and name of publisher, if available. The review draft of the second edition of the ISBD (CF) also follows this approach: "In the context of applying the ISBD (CF), all remote access computer files are considered to be published." [19] Users may be led to believe that an item is a completed work when its authors are continuing to revise its contents without clear indications of the revisions.
The number of records needed to describe electronic serials in multiple file formats was one of the most significant issues to resolve. Neither AACR2 nor the LCRI adequately address the question, but a clear policy is necessary for CONSER catalogers using a common database. While input from meetings and online discussions did not show uniform agreement, there was significant support for using one record for electronic serials published in multiple formats, regardless of the type of formats involved or the extent of the differences between the versions. While some consider this approach at variance with the established practice in AACR2 and LCRI for other formats, at present it seems to be the most practical approach for catalogers. An alternative was presented by these authors that proposed treatment of publications that offer significantly different versions to be treated as two editions. The proposal recommended two records if one version is in ASCII format and another includes both non-textual files (e.g., sound or graphic files) and nonlinear navigation (i.e., hypertext linking).
The single-record approach was endorsed for several reasons, including cataloging efficiency and a more useful catalog. Many believe that it will be easier for the cataloger to create a single record and that less record maintenance will be required. Another advantage with the single-record approach is that catalog users will have fewer records to review when searching for online resources. Potential disadvantages include more complex records, less detailed information in the records, and greater difficulty in identifying the specific version made available at a particular site. Nevertheless, most have applauded CONSER for its pragmatic approach to this issue.
Multiple sources of information about the publication is another complication for the cataloger. Cataloging rules instruct the serials cataloger to describe in the body of the record the first issue or earliest issue available. The "chief source of information" for cataloging computer files is the "title screen." This is described in AACR2 as "a display of data that includes the title proper and usually, though not necessarily, the statement of responsibility and the data relating to publication." [20] Module 31 offers detailed instructions for unconventional situations involving multiple sources of information, including how to record information from README files, table of contents files, file headers, and other electronic sources.
File characteristics information was another significant issue to resolve. There was little support from CONSER participants for the use of field 256 when the field was first evaluated for phase one of format integration. The field was not considered useful by CONSER catalogers because of the limited terms available for the field. Use of a note field to describe computer file formats or record a more general description of the form or genre was considered a better approach.
CONSER currently uses field 516 (type of computer file or data note) to record computer file characteristics information, including format, genre, or general type of file information (e.g., text and graphic files). The cataloger can record in a single note field all the necessary information relating to computer file characteristics, and use the machine-generated display constant "type of file:" if desired. Module 31 illustrates different usage of the "type of file" note, including notes for numeric files and files available in the ASCII, Acrobat, and PostScript, and RichText formats.
The main disadvantage with this approach to file characteristics information is that it is not consistent with standard monographic cataloging practices that rely on the use of field 256. Monographic catalogers use field 538 (system details note) for more detailed information about file characteristics. The information, when included in field 516 or 538, is buried in the notes area of the record which is less frequently read by catalog users. CONSER practice now places "type of file" information in a separate field (516) from "access and location" information (fields 538 and 856). See Figure 1, the full record for Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID) as displayed in the OCLC Online Union Catalog on 2/5/96, to see how the different fields are used to describe multiple file formats available via multiple Internet access methods (note the use of the 516, 538, and 856 fields). (Fixed-field information in the record will be converted by OCLC upon implementation of format integration.)
OCLC: 31848943 Rec stat: c
Entered: 19950118 Replaced: 19960205 Used: 19951207
Type: a Bib lvl: s Source: d Lang: eng
Repr: Enc lvl: 7 Govt pub: Ctry: gau
Phys med: Mod rec: Conf pub: 0 Cont: ^^^^
S/L ent: 0 Ser tp: p Frequn: q Alphabt: a
Desc: a Regulr: x ISDS: 1
Pub st: c Dates: 1995-9999
1 010 sn95-7042
2 040 NSD $c NSD $d OCL $d DLC
3 012 $l 1
4 022 0 1080-6059
5 037 $b Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
1600 Clifton Rd., Mailstop C-12, Atlanta, GA 30333
6 042 nsdp $a lcd
7 069 1 SR0083699
8 082 10 616 $2 12
9 090 $b
10 049 DLCC
11 130 0 Emerging infectious diseases (Online)
12 210 0 Emerg. infect. dis. $b (Online)
13 222 0 Emerging infectious diseases $b (Online)
14 245 00 Emerging infectious diseases $h [computer file] :
$b EID.
15 246 30 EID
16 260 Atlanta, GA : $b National Center for Infectious
Diseases : $b Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $c
[1995-
17 310 Four times per year
18 362 0 Vol. 1, no. 1 (Jan.-Mar. 1995)-
19 538 Mode of access: Internet e-mail, FTP, and World
Wide Web.
20 500 Description based on: hypertext/World Wide Web
version; title from EID home page.
21 516 8 ASCII, Acrobat, and PostScript file formats
22 530 Online version of: Emerging infectious diseases
(Print).
23 710 2 National Center for Infectious Diseases (U.S.)
24 776 1 $t Emerging infectious diseases (Print) $x
1080-6040 $w (DLC)sn 95007041 $w (OCoLC)31848353
25 856 0 $u mailto:lists@list.cdc.gov $i subscribe $f EID-*
$z Include desired file format following the hyphen in the
filename: IED-ASCII, EID-PDF, or EID-PS
26 856 1 ftp.cdc.gov $d pub/EID $l anonymous $z Each issue
is in a separate subdirectory (e.g., vol1no1). There are
additional subdirectories for each file format
27 856 7 $u http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/eid.htm $2 http
Describing electronic access information is another challenge for the cataloger due to the different areas of the record involved, including the new electronic location and access field (856). AACR2 requires catalogers to "always specify the mode of access" for electronic serials in a note. [21] The CONSER "mode of access" note now includes more general information to limit redundancy with the 856 field, which contains the detailed information needed to locate and access documents. Serials catalogers now use the note field 538 (system details information) for the more general information as the field is newly available through format integration. (CONSER records created before 1995 included electronic access information in a general note field.)
Development of CONSER practice for the 856 field will likely be an ongoing process until meaningful displays are developed for online catalogs and a certain degree of stability is found with the resources. The field was designed to accommodate multiple methods of access and different file formats, but the structure of electronic serials can be complex, involving several subdirectories and numerous files. (Many scholarly electronic journals have individual article files to enhance article access.) CONSER is following the standard practice of separate 856 fields for each mode of access, if known, but is not generally adding separate fields for each format. This is mainly due to the organization of serial publications which doesn't always allow for a distinct path to each format. Emerging Infectious Diseases, for example, has separate subdirectories for each issue that include additional subdirectories for the available formats, which, in turn, contain individual article files. [22] (See Figure 2, which shows the multiple subdirectories involved in accessing the complete PostScript version of Emerging Infectious Diseases.)
----------------------------------------------------------
| CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION--FTP SITE |
| (ftp.cdc.gov) |
----------------------------------------------------------
|
---------------------
| | | |
bin ----- usr dev
|pub|
-----
|
--------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
| | | | |
Software AboutCDC | infectious_diseases laboratory_info
--------------------------------
| EID |
|(Emerging Infectious Diseases)|
--------------------------------
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
adobe readme.txt toc.txt --------- --------- ---------
|vol1no1| |vol1no2| |vol1no3|
--------- --------- ---------
| | |
-------------------------------- | |
| | | | | |
adobe ascii ------------ readme.txt | |
|postscript| | |
------------ | |
| |
----------------------------- |
| | | | |
adobe ascii ------------ readme.txt |
|postscript| |
------------ |
|
-----------------------------
| | | |
adobe ascii ------------ readme.txt
|postscript|
------------
What is possibly a bigger issue for serials catalogers is where to get the access information and how complete or current it is when found. Multiple sources of information sometimes present different statements with perhaps incomplete information that may need to be pieced together for a complete and accurate account. The cataloger may feel that some investigation is needed or may simply rely on the most recent statement from the publisher. CONSER will also pursue this issue through a task force subgroup.
CONSER is continuing its efforts to further develop cataloging practice for electronic serials and has recently issued new documentation on the core record and fixed-field elements for electronic serials. Two CONSER task forces--Electronic Resources and Format Integration--have been working on these issues. The Electronic Resources Task Force has been working to develop recommendations for resolving many of the issues presented in this article including the: definition of "remote access computer file serials," treatment of multiple versions of electronic serials, examination of the utility of the 856 field, and others.
The Format Integration Task Force assisted in the development of the core record for electronic serials and in the documentation of new computer file fixed-field elements in the CONSER Editing Guide. Update 3 of the CONSER Editing Guide, issued spring 1996, reflects the complete implementation of format integration and includes the following: CONSER core record for electronic serials, description of CONSER practice in applying 006 and 008 fixed-field elements for computer files, and the 007 field for computer file physical characteristics.
The second and final phase of format integration is scheduled to take place in early 1996, and it involves the integration of the fixed-field portion of the bibliographic record. Under current plans, a CONSER electronic serial record will include computer file 007 and 008 fields with a serial 006 field. (OCLC will convert fixed-field information in CONSER records for electronic serials by adding 008 computer file elements and converting 008 serial elements into an 006 field.) This arrangement will effectively include in a single record all the serial and computer file elements, along with physical description fixed-field coding for computer file characteristics (field 007).
The addition of computer file fixed-field elements to the CONSER record may well impact on other areas of the record. Also, the likely development of the file characteristics area of the record may see the addition of field 256 to the CONSER record. Developments in the application of the 856 field will likely lead to more consistent cataloging practices in recording location and access information.
Electronic serials have been on the CONSER agenda for several years now and will likely continue to be a pressing issue. CONSER will continue to rely on discussion lists for feedback from the cataloging community to assist in the continuing development of cataloging policies as well as participation in ALA, NASIG, and CONSER meetings. The continuing evolution of electronic serials will likely compel CONSER to maintain its focus in this area for some time to come.
1. Melissa Beck et al., "Module 31, Remote Access Computer File Serials," in CONSER Cataloging Manual (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1995), 1-37. Module 31 is available at:
<URL:ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/collections.services/concatman.e_serials.wp51>
<URL:http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/ercelawn/eserials.html>
2. Ibid., 8.
3. "Computer Files," in Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., 1988 rev., eds. Michael Gorman and Paul W. Winkler (Ottawa: Canadian Library Association; Chicago: American Library Association, 1988), 220-241.
4. IFLA Working Group on the ISBD (CF), International Standard Bibliographic Description for Computer Files (London: IFLA Universal Bibliographic Control and International MARC Programme, 1990).
5. MARBI Proposal No. 93-4 (Washington, DC: OCLC Internet Resources Project and Library of Congress, 1992).
6. Guidelines for the Use of Field 856 (Washington, DC: Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress, 1995).
7. ISBD (CF) Review Group, "International Standard Bibliographic Description for Computer Files," 2nd. ed. draft (London: British Library Bibliographic Services, 1995).
8. ISBD (CF) Review Group, "Meeting of April 24-26, 1995, Summary Report," e-mail message, May 1995.
9. Martin Dillon et al., Assessing Information on the Internet (Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Office of Research, 1993).
10. Nancy B. Olson, Cataloging Internet Resources: A Manual and Practical Guide (Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., 1995). See <URL:http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9256cat/toc.htm>.
11. Julia Blixrud, "CONSER and Electronic Serials," CONSER 22 (January 1992): 3-5.
12. About CICNet (Ann Arbor, MI: CICNet, Inc., 1995). See <URL:gopher://gopher.cic.net:2000/00/CICNet/README>.
13. CONSER, "Summary of At-Large Meeting, June 25, 1995," e-mail message, 7 July 1995.
14. Postmodern Culture is available at:
<URL:file://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/pub/pubs/pmc/>
<URL:gopher://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/11/pubs/pmc>
<URL:http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/pmc/contents.all.html>
<URL:http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/pmc/list_sub.html>
15. Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., 1988 rev., 622.
16. "12.0 A, Monograph vs. Serial Treatment of Publications," in Library of Congress Rule Interpretations, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: 1990), 2-4.
17. Martin Dillon et al., "Appendix D. Guidelines for Participants," in Assessing Information on the Internet, D1-D13.
18. Nancy B. Olson, "AACR2 9.4, Publication, Distribution, Etc., Area [MARC 260]," in Cataloging Internet Resources: A Manual and Practical Guide. See <URL:http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9256cat/292area2.htm#9.4>.
19. ISBD (CF) Review Group, "International Standard Bibliographic Description for Computer Files," 2nd. ed. draft, 70.
20. Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., 1988 rev., 624.
21. Ibid., 235.
22. Emerging Infectious Diseases is available at:
<URL:ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/EID>
<URL:http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/eid.htm>
<URL:mailto:lists@list.cdc.gov>
Bill Anderson, CONSER Specialist, Library of Congress, Serial Record Division, Washington, DC 20540-4160. Internet: wand@loc.gov.
Les Hawkins, National Serials Data Program Cataloger, Library of Congress, Serial Record Division, Washington, DC 20540-4160. Internet: lhaw@loc.gov.
The World-Wide Web home page for The Public-Access Computer Systems Review provides detailed information about the journal and access to all article files: <URL:http://info.lib.uh.edu/pacsrev.html>.
This article is in the public domain.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C) 1996 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All Rights Reserved.