FDLP

Bibliographic Cataloging: Overview

Authoritative Status of the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications

The Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP) is the authoritative source of all GPO bibliographic records and cataloging activity. GPO records obtained from other sources, such as OCLC, may have been modified by other cataloging/metadata agencies and thus are not the authoritative versions of the records. With the exceptions described in the next section, GPO maintains its bibliographic records only in the CGP.

GPO Records in OCLC and Record Maintenance

GPO has been a member of OCLC since July 1976. GPO contributes bibliographic records for U.S. Government Publications in all formats. GPO maintains its records in the following situations:

  • As a CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials) member, GPO continually updates records for U.S. Government serials and integrating resources.
  • GPO will only correct errors in its OCLC records that have been identified through quality control processes.

GPO is not responsible for any modifications to its records in OCLC:

  • Additions, alterations, and deletions of metadata by other OCLC members
  • Changes made by OCLC processes, such as the merging of records.

Ordinarily GPO will not make changes to its OCLC records at the request of libraries.

Sources

Use the Bibliographic Cataloging sections in conjunction with the following sources:

What LSCM Catalogs

  • Material Distributed, in any format, through the FDLP: records must always include an item number in the 074 field, unless the title was distributed prior to the implementation of item numbers in the Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications. The digitized version of these titles also would not contain an item number; in such cases a note is included to indicate why an item number is not present in the record. Some records will contain 776 linking entry fields, even if a link goes to a non-distributed format.
  • Material within Scope of the Cataloging & Indexing Program (C&I): publications issued by the Federal Government but not distributed through the FDLP. The C&I Program aims to create a comprehensive index of all Federal documents that are not confidential in nature. For example, a record for a publication marked for administrative or official use only will not include an item number in the 074 field but will contain a SuDoc number in the 086 field. A 500 note that reads "Not distributed to depository libraries" should be included in the record. This note is only included in administrative or official use only publications.

OCLC *42333264, System No. 511176
086 HE 20.3402:SCI 2/2
500 "For administrative use only."
500 Not distributed to depository libraries.
[No item number in record]

Likewise, the record for a tangible version of a publication distributed to the FDLP only online will not include an item number in the 074 field but will contain a SuDoc number in the 086 field. A 500 note that reads "Format not distributed to depository libraries" should be included in the record. Beginning November 1, 2016, prefer in the note, to additionally specify the format of the record itself (that is, the record in which you are recording the note), e.g.:

500 Print format not distributed to depository libraries. (In record for print format)
500 Microfiche format not distributed to depository libraries. (In record for microfiche format)
500 DVD format not distributed to depository libraries. (In record for DVD format)
500 Computer disc format not distributed to depository libraries. (In record for computer disc format)

Use this same note, even if no formats of the publication are distributed, as long as the publication is not for administrative or official use only. The most common instance of this is when a tangible document is not distributed, but the corresponding online version is not found. In this case, use one of the notes above. Do not use “Not distributed to depository libraries,” because the online version may become available at a later time.

  • Historic Material: publications from the legacy collections, including GPO's Historic Shelflist, the Monthly Catalog, and cooperative cataloging partnerships with depository libraries. 

In order to ensure the data integrity of the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP), LSCM staff should NOT import records from OCLC or other library catalogs for titles, resources, or formats that do not fall into one of the above three categories. Records that do not come under one of the above three categories, should not, in OCLC, be Produced (meaning the specific function containing the word “Produce”), have Holdings Updated, or display “Held by GPO.”

All new bibliographic records created by LSCM will contain both a holdings record and an item record in the CGP (some bibliographic records may contain multiple Item records).

Treatment Decisions for Collections and Analytics

Agency websites often arrange works related either by subject or by series into collections, for which GPO catalogers may choose one of the following treatments. In cases of doubt, consult with a supervisory librarian.

For our purpose, a collection is defined as a group of publications:

that typically appear on the same landing page with a stable URL on which parts are collocated by subject and directly-linked (rather than searched by a separate strategy); and

that may not have been originally published or produced together.

Do not consider as collections general lists of agency items that are arranged by publication types, or for which no single, unifying subject is apparent. (See Guidelines for Acquiring Information Products for the FDLP and Cataloging and Indexing Programs: Basic Criteria (LSCM Guidance, G400.2), 2.5.1 Agency Websites and 2.5.2 Online Databases, p. 22.)

TREATMENT TYPE TREATMENT ACTION DECISION AUTHORITY
Collection-level treatment Catalog the collection only If collection-level or mixed treatment is chosen, then seek approval from the supervisory librarians.
Mixed treatment Catalog both the collection and
selected analytics
Full treatment Catalog all of the analytics  

 

 For mixed treatment, provide:

In collection-level record: 
General Note
500 __ Some individual resources also cataloged separately. #5 GPO

In analytic records:
Host Item Entry Note
773 0_ [Link to collection level record non-reciprocally.]

For collection-level treatment:

If a collection terminates or disappears (e.g., when a website is re-designed), then close the record and, if possible, point to the higher level domain when analytics remain available on the website, even if scattered.

Treatments may differ for different manifestations, e.g.,

An online collection may be cataloged as a collection, whereas …
The cataloged collection’s constituent, individual print manifestations that are distributed through the FDLP may be cataloged analytically.

Factors to consider for the treatment decision

Priorities articulated by GPO’s LSCM/LTS Cataloging and Collection Development units, and the Superintendent of Documents. Consider a collection’s “fit” with either high-, medium, or low-priority statuses in these departments’ guidance, for example:

Guidelines for Acquiring Information Products for the FDLP and Cataloging and Indexing Programs: Basic Criteria (LSCM Guidance, G400.2). 2017. [especially 2. Guidance, p. 8-24]

Content Scope for GPO’s System of Online Access. Superintendent of Documents Public Policy Statement. 2016.

Size of collection, or Number of analytics [rules of thumb:]

If hundreds of works appear in the collection, then either collection-level treatment or mixed treatment is appropriate. When analytics are impractical, then provide well-elaborated subject headings in the collection records.

If only ten or twenty works appear in the whole collection, then presume that analysis is preferred.

Necessity and/or benefit of subject analysis

If documents in a collection are official records or cover topics of high popular interest, historic interest, or research value, inter alia, then analytics likely are justified, especially if they would result in a wide variety of subject headings. 

Analytic Treatment

Case study for U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration’s Drug and Chemical Information, available from https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drug_chem_info/index.html

Although only a few of these drug profiles are identified for analytic treatment by brief bibliographic records, their high popular interest and the need for subject access to all of the drug names compel full analysis of all of the works in this updating collection. The decision for full treatment was reached through consultation with supervisors and the database integrity and authority control librarian.

Collection-level Treatments in the CGP

[Integrating resources, open]

OCLC #990805663 / CGP 1021095
United States. Government Accountability Office. Watchdog report.
PURL
SuDoc: GA 1.44:

OCLC #863063474 / CGP 913292
Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products National Program (U.S.). Project annual reports from National Program 306.
PURL
SuDoc: A 77.718/3:

OCLC #883856932 / CGP 931763
Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive.
PURL
SuDoc: GP 3.45:

[Integrating resources, closed]

OCLC # 747040972 / CGP 832680
Coastal Zone Information Center (U.S.). Coastal Zone Information Center collection.
PURL
SuDoc: C 55.2:C 63/24/

OCLC #782903287 / CGP 868610
Food safety at home podcasts.
PURL
SuDoc: A 110.28:

[Serial record for a series, open]

OCLC # 938995264 / CGP 971938
Forest Products Laboratory (U.S.). Research in progress.
PURL
SuDoc: A 13.27/17:

Separate Record Policy

LSCM creates bibliographic records following the separate record approach. The switch from the single record approach in 2008 was undertaken at the request of the Federal depository library community. The separate record approach refers to creating or utilizing separate records for each format or manifestation: print, microfiche, CD-ROM/DVD, or online (remote electronic). The single record approach refers to one, single record being used to describe more than one format or manifestation.

Background

In the 1980’s, GPO began adding distribution notes for microfiche versions to records for the print publications. The first GPO procedures for cataloging electronic resources were developed in the early 1990’s, and focused on resources available from the Federal Bulletin Board (FBB). The FBB resources were cataloged separately from the tangible versions of those publications. In 1995 CONSER adopted the single record approach, which is described in the CONSER Cataloging Manual module 31. GPO began applying this approach in the same year, and developed the first set of comprehensive instructions for cataloging electronic resources, "Preliminary Instructions on Recording Access Information for Remotely Accessible Files". These instructions were designed to minimize the amount of time devoted to cataloging remote electronic resources because of their transitory nature, and called for the inclusion of 530 and 538 notes in the tangible record. Links to the online resource (URLs or PURLs) were added to the tangible record, resulting in a single record approach. With GPO’s adoption of FDsys, and its need to meet the requirements of FDsys for individual records, as well as the adoption of an Integrated Library System (ILS) with which GPO could finally record comprehensive holdings, GPO found a greater need for separate records for each format.

Procedures

GPO follows BIBCO and CONSER policy for cataloging print, microfiche, and electronic resources, as appropriate for monographs or continuing resources. Reciprocal links between separate formats via the 776 field are included, regardless of whether the format linked to is held or distributed by GPO. A 776 link may be made to a record that is not in the CGP, but only exists in OCLC. These 776 links are retained in the CGP – they are not removed before exporting the record to the CGP.

When adding a 776 link to a tangible document record found in OCLC, an important distinction must be made between a record for which the cataloger does not have the item (or piece or format) in hand, and a record for which the cataloger does have the piece in hand. The concept of “having an item in hand” includes access to shelflist cards, Monthly Catalog entries, surrogates, and bibliographic records received from partner libraries. In such cases, regardless of whether or not that format is distributed, that format is given full cataloging treatment. The cataloger will add all relevant information to the record, claim the record via his/her appropriate 955 code, and export the record to the CGP. The appropriate procedures are followed, according to whether the format is distributed or cataloged for C&I only (meaning not distributed), has a brief bibliographic record, and is a monograph, serial, or integrating resource.

If none of the conditions of having the format in "hand" exist, the cataloger must still search OCLC for records for the tangible format which is not in hand. The cataloger selects the best record for this format, and merely adds a 776 linking entry that points to the GPO online record. The GPO online record should contain a reciprocal link to this record for the tangible format, even though it will not be in the CGP. Once the 776 link is added to the OCLC master record of a format not in hand, that record is Replaced. The record will show no holdings in GPO.

Unlike the formats in hand, this record is not exported to the CGP. It is left in OCLC. Since this record is not being exported to the CGP, the cataloger cannot claim the record via the appropriate 955 code. Consequently, the cataloger should only spend the short time needed to add the 776 field to the record, and replace it in OCLC. This update is reported in the Cataloger’s Daily Statistics under Database Maintenance, even though the database, in this case, is not the CGP but OCLC.

When performing retrospective cataloging for which an older record is found that combines data for multiple formats, the cataloger generally “splits” such a record into two (or more) records, each describing a single format. The existing record retains its primary format, as coded in the fixed field, Form: Form of Item, 008/23, while the data representing the additional format is essentially transferred to a newly created or adapted record, which represents only that additional format. (Some older records may combine three formats, thus resulting in three records from one.)

The same general procedure is followed when a single-record approach record exists in the CGP, but a separate record is then needed for the online version. A new record is created for the online version; each record in the CGP will then follow the single-record approach.

When an older record that uses the single-record approach, is found in OCLC, but is not present in the CGP even though it should be, the cataloger should create (or adapt) a new record for the additional format, update holdings or replace that record, and export both records to the CGP. In effect, the cataloger “splits” the single-record approach record into two records that use the separate record approach. The only caveat is that the cataloger should retain the online information (856, 074, 538, 530, etc.) in the OCLC master record, but remove it from the CGP record.

OCLC *54771159

Created by GPO, this microfiche record was found in OCLC displaying “Held by GPO,” but was not in the CGP. It contained additional information for the online version in the 074, 530, and 856 fields. These fields were retained in the OCLC master record, but removed from the CGP record. A 776 field was added, which linked to:

OCLC *939699193: a record that the cataloger created for the online version. This record was created and exported to the CGP.

When a new online record is created using the same PURL that already existed in an older record that utilized the single-record approach, the new record may be exported to the CGP using the New (Alt + N) macro, even though it contains an old PURL. In these and other cases, older PURLs are allowed in the New Electronic Titles (NET) list.

Exceptions

Exceptions to the separate record approach are few. If the cataloger knows that a single issue of a serial was distributed in a tangible format (usually microfiche or print), in order to fill the holdings of an electronic resource record, a separate record need not be created for that format. For example, a single missing issue of an online serial is procured in print, sent for filming, and distributed to depository libraries in microfiche. A separate microfiche record need not be created. Instead, data for the distribution of that particular issue, such as a 500 distribution note and a 074 for the format, should be noted in the online record.

A second exception to creating or utilizing separate records may be made when a cataloger is performing retrospective work. This frequently occurs when correcting errors in old records, in response to customer inquiries. Whenever possible, the cataloger should create separate records for such retrospective work, where separate formats have been processed by GPO. When searching OCLC, the cataloger may find one of the following four situations: no records are found, a record for the format in question is found, a record is found for a different format that describes only that different format (separate record approach), or a record is found for a different format that also has information for the format in question (single record approach). In the last situation, an exception may be made to the separate record approach when expediency, other priorities, or workload requirements make the creation of a separate record inefficient. In such cases, usually where old, longstanding GPO records exist, the cataloger may make the necessary corrections or updates to the single record which technically describes a different format, but includes information for the format in question. For example, an old multipart monograph print record, in the CGP, is held by GPO on OCLC with many holdings (say 163) and the record has a PURL. The customer notes that part 2 is not available in the PURL. The cataloger adds part 2 to the PURL, which solves the customer’s inquiry without the need for any cataloging. Alternatively, the cataloger may decide to go ahead and clone a new online record from the tangible record, because his/her workload is minimally affected. On the other hand, this particular multipart may contain 24 parts, but only 4 are available online, therefore the cataloger decides not to create a separate online record.

When correcting errors in an old single-approach record (for example, typos, punctuation, MARC indicators, tag numbers or subfield codes, access points, SuDoc or item numbers, etc.), it is not necessary to create an additional record for the secondary format described by the record (usually online or microfiche). Other situations may be decided on a case-by-case basis by supervisors.

A slight deviation from the separate record approach is GPO’s policy for cataloging ebooks. Federal agencies have been showing an increased interest in providing their content in eBook format. Therefore, GPO has begun including ebooks in the CGP. GPO has decided to treat ebooks as an additional online (remote electronic) format; therefore, the ebook versions of a title are made available through the PURL of the online version record. A separate record is not created for the ebook. The record is based on the PDF version whenever possible.

Original Cataloging

Original cataloging is done following RDA standards. Exception: See Question Number 4 of: Announcement: Final date for BIBCO and CONSER AACR2 bibliographic records: December 31, 2014. Also, see this same exception in the following two sections of LC-PCC PS for 1.11: “Cloning from existing records for the original print resource” (in the Microform section) and “Cloning from existing records for the original resource” (in the Print on Demand section).

When creating an original record, catalogers follow these steps:

  • Create an OCLC record
  • In OCLC, Update Holdings (F8) or Produce and Update Holdings (Shift+F7)
  • For non-distributed formats (C&I) only: Delete holdings
  • Make edits for local practices
  • Export the record to the CGP
  • Follow additional instructions in forthcoming Cataloging Guideline chapter, Processes for Updating and Exporting OCLC Records to the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications

During exporting, be sure to include the OCLC number in the 001 field. Also, the correct code should be used in the 049 field in order to create an item and/or holdings record in ALEPH. The cataloger should also use the 955 “new” (Alt+N) macro, which will include their code, the date, and identify the record as new. If the record is part of a cooperative cataloging partnership agreement, a 955 field with the words “CATPART” should always be included. More detailed instructions will be issued in a forthcoming chapter of the Cataloging Guidelines, with the tentative title (as of October 2016): Processes for Updating and Exporting OCLC Records to the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications.

Encoding Level (ELvl): GPO uses only three encoding levels: blank, I, or 1. Blank or I must be used with the piece in hand; 1 may be used without the piece in hand.

Original records are coded at the highest level possible: PCC level. The fixed field ELvl: = blank (Full-level). Also, code the fixed field Srce: = c (Cooperative cataloging program), and the 042 field: pcc. All access points in a PCC record must be authorized, including personal names. If a personal name access point in a record cannot be authorized, the record is coded at I level. If other name or subject access points in the record cannot be authorized, the record is coded at I level. For I level records, code the fixed field Srce: = d (Other), and do not add a 042 field, since I level records are not PCC.

For retrospective cataloging without the item in hand, the record may be coded with ELvl: = 1 (Full-level, material not examined).

While authority work is pending, Congressional and other priority publications can be produced at I level with unauthorized (i.e., uncontrolled) access points, to be updated to PCC level upon completion of the authority work.

Copy Cataloging

As an OCLC member, GPO adapts appropriate OCLC database records to catalog the documents it acquires and distributes. As a participant in PCC (BIBCO, CONSER, NACO, SACO) and as a National-level Enhanced OCLC member, GPO makes changes to database records where required, but does not make changes that are NOT allowed by these programs. GPO does not create a new record if there is a record already in the OCLC database that matches the document being cataloged. If a cataloger is uncertain about adapting an existing OCLC record after comparing it with the document in hand, a new record is created. Existing OCLC master records are changed as little as possible. For example, GPO normally does not insert a corporate body into a 110 field when the record lacks a 110 field. Nor does GPO move information on a corporate body that could be recorded as part of the title, as a statement of responsibility, or as the publisher—unless this information is incorrect according to the cataloging standards used by the original cataloging agency or, if re-describing (re-coding) to RDA, must be changed in order to adhere to new standards.

When multiple records for the same title exist in OCLC, catalogers select the most appropriate record to adapt by examining the encoding/authentication level, the date of creation, and the institution creating the record (DLC or PCC records would be given preference). Duplicate records may be reported to OCLC if the cataloger has time by sending a Report Error message (under the Action menu) in OCLC or using a WorldCat and Authority Record Quality Control Request form.

While adapting an existing record, GPO does not remove information from the OCLC master record in order to apply local practices. GPO will upgrade the record to either I level or PCC level, if possible. In general, corrections will only be made for information that is incorrect or not in accordance with the cataloging standard being used for the record. GPO will not change information which is correct under either AACR2 or RDA, even if it does not adhere to GPO local policies. Those changes, if considered important, may only be made to the record in the CGP. Specific instructions regarding modifications to be made only to the record in the CGP may be found under sections for the relevant MARC fields in various chapters of the Cataloging Guidelines, and in the forthcoming chapter, Processes for Updating and Exporting OCLC Records to the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications. In general, do not take time to perform a change to the CGP version of an adapted record, that solely comprises a GPO stylistic preference, but has no bearing on a GPO-specific function such as classification, distribution, or shipping list number.

An adapted record contains:
500 Caption title.
Do not change this note in the OCLC master record. While GPO prefers the form “Title from caption,” do not bother changing this note, even in the CGP record only; it is not that important.

Consult and follow: Announcement: Final date for BIBCO and CONSER AACR2 bibliographic records: December 31, 2014. The two quoted sentences below are from this Announcement.

Adapting PCC Pre-RDA Records

PCC level AACR2 monograph records (BIBCO authenticated records) should not be converted to RDA. PCC level AACR2 serial records (CONSER authenticated records) generally need not be converted to RDA, especially if only a few changes are being made. In such cases, AACR2 treatment should be retained. However, if the cataloger is extensively revising the serial record, and finds it faster to convert to RDA, the cataloger may do so. “CONSER catalogers should consult the CONSER Guidelines for Working with Existing Copy for specific instructions.” According to Question number 2 of the above-cited Announcement, “However, for integrating resources, you should convert to RDA if your edits are based on a later iteration.” Otherwise, PCC level AACR2 records do not need to be re-coded to RDA; AACR2 treatment should be retained.

Adapting Non-PCC Pre-RDA Records

However, for non PCC records (unauthenticated records), catalogers may re-describe/re-code any record that has been cataloged according to a non-RDA code, to RDA. Do this only with the "piece in hand" in order that all necessary bibliographic information is available. Before re-coding the record to RDA, the entire record must be examined and adjusted as needed. Re-coding of an AACR2 record is not necessary and should only be done when it will save the cataloger time. When making minor edits to a record, there is no need to re-code. When a non-PCC level AACR2 record cannot be authenticated to PCC level, due to unauthorized personal name access points or other reasons, it is not necessary to re-code the record to RDA.

When updating any record to make minimal or specific changes, such as corrections, clarifications, class changes, adding a 776 field, etc., it is not necessary to re-code the record to RDA or to upgrade the record to PCC.

If, however, the record requires extensive updating of content, as is often the case for serials and integrating resources, the cataloger may find it expedient to convert the record to RDA and upgrade it to PCC level. If for some reason the cataloger cannot upgrade the record to PCC level, he or she may still find it expedient to only convert the record to RDA, but this is not required. In addition to RDA and stylistic updates, updating certain fields (such as the 246, 77X, 787) and their associated indicators, improves the display of these records in integrated library systems.

Otherwise, do not change elements unless they are incorrect, inaccurate, unclear, outdated, or missing (such as extent and other elements in a missing 300 field).

Authenticating Non-PCC Pre-RDA Records as PCC

Whenever authenticating a non-PCC non-RDA record, the cataloger must convert the record to RDA. See Question 3 of the above Announcement: “Generally conversion of existing records to RDA is only necessary if the intent is to authenticate the record as PCC. Some existing "non-RDA" records for serials may be authenticated without converting to RDA. CONSER catalogers should consult the CONSER Guidelines for Working with Existing Copy for specific instructions.”

Replacing and Exporting Records

When modifying an existing OCLC master record, Replace the record after making the updates, make edits for local practices, and export the record to the CGP. (Exception: records not exported, to which only a 776 field is added in OCLC. See section above, Procedures.) When Replacing the master record in OCLC, use one of the following commands:

  • Replace and Update Holdings (Alt+F11) – when the record should display “Held by GPO” (for online and tangibly distributed documents)
  • Replace Record (Alt+F10) – when the record should display “No Holdings in GPO” (for non-distributed documents and for records updated only in OCLC but not exported)

During exporting, be sure to include the OCLC number in the 001 field. Also, the correct code should be used in the 049 field in order to create an item and/or holdings record in ALEPH. The cataloger should also use the correct 955 macro to include their code and the date. In general, use the Alt+N macro for records new to the CGP which GPO had not previously touched. Generally, use the Alt+U macro for records not new to the CGP, or new to the CGP but previously touched by GPO (occasionally, records cataloged by GPO are found in OCLC that did not make it into the CGP). If the record is part of a cooperative cataloging partnership agreement, a 955 field with the words “CATPART” should always be included. More detailed instructions will be issued in a forthcoming chapter of the Cataloging Guidelines, with the tentative title (as of October 2016): Processes for Updating and Exporting OCLC Records to the Catalog of U.S Government Publications.

Cataloging Non-distributed Formats (for Cataloging & Indexing (C&I))

These instructions refer only to formats that were never distributed. They do not refer to continuing resources that are no longer distributed, but were distributed in the past. Such resources are considered “distributed,” since these were distributed for part of their existence.

When cataloging a non-distributed format for C&I, an item number (074 field) is not included in the record. Instead, the following are included:

A 500 field such as:
500 Format not distributed to depository libraries. 
500 Print format not distributed to depository libraries. 
500 Microfiche format not distributed to depository libraries.  
500 DVD format not distributed to depository libraries.  
500 Computer disc format not distributed to depository libraries.
Etc.

776 08 $i Online version: [etc.] [if an online version is available]

086 0 A SuDoc class number is included

The procedure is:

Create an OCLC record, or adapt an existing OCLC master record.

If creating a new OCLC record, follow the bulleted steps in the above section, Original Cataloging, including the 3rd bullet: “For non-distributed formats (C&I) only.”

If modifying an existing OCLC master record, follow the procedure in the above section, Replacing and Exporting Records. Use the command in the second bullet, Replace (Alt+F10). If the record displays “Held by GPO,” Delete Holdings.

All OCLC records for C&I should display “No holdings in GPO.”

Authority Records

For work on subject authority records, either new or updates, follow the procedures in: Subject Cataloging: Subject Heading Proposals, Workflow. For work on name authority records, catalogers who are independent for NACO work may proceed on their own. Catalogers who are under NACO review (NACO trainees) and catalogers who wish to have particular records reviewed, should proofread and submit their authority records for review, along with any supporting documentation. Always include either the tangible publication or the PURL with your authority record. Please complete the bibliographic work prior to submitting an authority record. However, do not produce the corresponding bibliographic record until the authority records have been reviewed and approved by reviewers. Review all reviewer’s notes in authority records and double-check that all recommendations have been implemented before completing the authority and bibliographic records.

All bibliographic RDA PCC records must have either RDA or “RDA acceptable” access points. An “RDA acceptable” authority record is one that is coded as AACR2, but the access point would be constructed the same under RDA. This means the authority record does not contain a 667 note indicating that the record must be reviewed and/or updated when used in an RDA record (“THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED”). The corresponding authority record for each descriptive access point in a newly authenticated RDA PCC record must be checked to ensure that this 667 note is not present. If present, the particular authority record must be re-coded to RDA before being used in a newly authenticated RDA record. If not, the bibliographic record containing the non “RDA acceptable” access point may still be coded RDA, however it may not be authenticated (and would therefore need to be coded I level). To reiterate this point: bibliographic records containing non “RDA acceptable” access points may be coded RDA, but may not be newly authenticated (see paragraph below for records that are already authenticated). This situation will most often occur with personal name access points/authority records needed for non-Congressional publications, since catalogers would not perform authority work on these. A less common situation is seen in the example below. Otherwise, the cataloger would normally update the associated non “RDA acceptable” authority records in order to authenticate the bibliographic record at PCC level. See PCC Post-RDA Test Guidelines for more details.

Finally, if an existing pre-RDA (AACR2 or earlier standard) record contains a non “RDA acceptable” access point, that record can remain at AACR2 or earlier standard, whether it is already authenticated (PCC level) or not. The non “RDA acceptable” authority record need not be upgraded unless the cataloger wishes to authenticate the associated bibliographic record.

OCLC *815525287

245 00 Examination of a size-change test for photovoltaic encapsulation materials : ǂb preprint …

It appears that GPO adapted and authenticated this existing record prior to the implementation of RDA. This resource is an individual conference paper "Presented at SPIE Optics + Photonics 2012, San Diego, California, August 12-16, 2012." GPO has a policy of not providing access points for the conference for individual conference papers, but the record that GPO was adapting contained the following access point:

711 2 SPIE Optics and Photonics Conference ǂd (2012 : ǂc San Diego, Calif.)

Suppose GPO were adapting this record for the first time today, now that RDA has been implemented. Suppose this record is I level and AACR2. No authority record exists for the 2012 conference, but an authority record does exist for the collective conference. However, the record for the collective conference (111 2 SPIE Optics and Photonics Conference) contains: 667 THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED. In order to create an authority record for the 2012 conference, GPO would have to first re-code the record for the collective conference. But GPO would not perform authority work on the conference for an individual conference paper, only for the proceedings (2 or more papers) of a conference. This situation is similar to not performing authority work for a personal name in a non-Congressional publication. Respecting the OCLC cooperative catalog, the partially controlled conference access point (711) is not removed from the record. The cataloger then has two options: (1) leave the bibliographic record as AACR2 and I level, or (2) re-code the bibliographic record to RDA but leave it at I level.

While authority work is pending, Congressional and other priority publications can be produced at I level with unauthorized (i.e., uncontrolled) access points, to be updated to PCC level upon completion of the authority work.

Back to Top

GPO Cataloging Guidelines

Introduction
Bibliographic Cataloging
Overview
Authoritative Status of the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications
GPO Records in OCLC and Record Maintenance
Sources
What LSCM Catalogs
Treatment Decisions for Collections and Analytics
Factors to Consider for the Treatment Decision
Separate Record Policy
Background
Procedures
Exceptions
Original Cataloging
Copy Cataloging
Adapting PCC Pre-RDA Records
Adapting Non-PCC Pre-RDA Records
Authenticating Non-PCC Pre-RDA Records as PCC
Replacing and Exporting Records
Cataloging Non-distributed Formats (for C&I)
Authority Records
General MARC Field Policy 490 – Series Statement Field
General MARC Field Policy 856 – Historic URLs
074 GPO Item Number
Multiparts
Item Number Corrections
086 SuDoc Number
Sources to Consult
Background and General Instructions
Multiparts
Serials and Integrating Resources
Microfiche
Current RDA Policies and MARC Fields (February 2015- )
MARC Fields
Overview of Previous Microfiche Policies
Re-Cataloging Microfiche
Congressional Publications
Fixed Fields
Leader/17- Encoding Level
Leader/18 - Descriptive Cataloging Form
008/39 - Cataloging Source
Variable Fields
037 - GPO Sales Stock Number
042 - Authentication Code
050 - LC Call Number
086 - SuDoc Classification Number
088 - Report Number
1xx - Principal Creator
130/240 - Unique Title for Work
245 - Title Statement
250 - Edition Statement
264 - Publication Statement
264 - Distribution Statement
300 - Physical Description
500 - General Notes
504 - Bibliography, etc. Note
505 - Contents Note
Technical Reports
Identification of Technical Reports
Monograph or Serial
Sources of Information
Cataloging Instructions
Fixed Fields
Variable Fields
General Guidance on Special Technical Report Fields
027 – Standard Technical Report Number
513 – Type of Report and Period Covered Note
536 – Funding Information Note
Public and Private Laws
Public Laws
Private Laws
Instructions
Treaties
074 - Item Number
086 - SuDoc Number
490 and 830 - Series
546 and 041- Language
Senate Treaty Document Series (Y 1.1/4:)
Cartographic Materials
Background and Sources Consulted
BLM Surface/Mineral Management Maps
Encoding Level
1XX- Principal Creator
255 - Cartographic Math Data
300 - Physical Description
655 - Genre Term
Audiovisual Resources
Scope of the Format Visual Resources
Definitions of Types of Visual Resources
Bibliographic Treatment in the CGP
Analytics of Videos
Collections of Videos
Analytics of Still Images
Collections of Still Images
MARC Fields for Visual Resources
245
300 - Physical Description
655 - Genre/Form Terms
Continuing Resources
Selective Registration for ISSN Assignments
GPO’s automated submission of continuing resources for ISSN assignments
GPO’s selective registration of continuing resources for ISSN assignments
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Serials
Sources to Consult
Policies, Procedures, Practices
Definition of Serial
Monograph vs. Serial and Frequency of Issuance
When Mode of Issuance Is Ambiguous
Replacement of Monograph Records with a Serial Record
Ceased Serials Cataloged for the First Time GPO
Numbering–Exceptions to RDA Principle of Transcription
Notification of Cataloging Updates via WebTech Notes
Notification of OAM for Serials Harvesting
Updating Collections of Serials
MARC Fields
Leader /17 (Encoding Lvl) & 042
010 - LC Control Number
022 - ISSN
050 – LC Call Number
060 – NLM Call Number
070 – NAL Call Number
074 - Item Number
082 - Dewey Decimal Classification Number
086 - SuDoc Number
246- Varying Form of Title
264 - Production, Publication
300 - Physical Description (300|a )
362, 588, and Any Field Where Designation Is Represented
500 - Distribution Note
515 - Numbering Peculiarities
538 - System Details Note
588 - DBO/Source of Title Proper Note
Verbiage for “Description Based on” Note
Print Version Record Used As Basis of Description for Online Version
76X--78X– Linking Entry Fields
776 – Additional Physical Form
Cessation of print version, continuation online version
Cessation of serial due to format and title change
Microform serials and GPO practices for linkages
Former, discontinued practice for linking microform serials to other manifestations
Current practice for linking microform serials to other manifestations
Other Considerations for Linking Entry Fields
Parallel formats
Works linked but not described in bibliographic records
856 – Electronic Location & Access
Single- vs. Separate-Record Approach and PURLs
Appendix A: Bibliographic File Maintenance: Deletion of Records from the CONSER Database
Appendix B: Where to Find Certain CONSER Procedures
Integrating Resources
086 - SuDoc Number
130 - Authorized Access Point for Work
245 - Title
Other Title Information ($b)
Statement of Responsibility ($c)
300 - Physical Description
5XX - Notes
Order of 5xx Notes
588 - DBO/Source of title proper note
580/760-787 - Linking Relationships
Computer Files
Procedures to Convert Type "M" to Type "A" Records
Name Authorities
Background
Instructions to Consult
Policy Overview
Personal Names
Congressional Publications
Other Publications
Corporate/Conference Names
Variant Names
Conference Authority Records
Programs and Projects
Corporate Names for Parks, Forests, Preserves, etc.
Works and Expressions
Multipart (Collective) Titles
Series
Series-Like Phrases
Places (Jurisdictional Geographic Names)
General Procedures
Optional Fields
Research in OCLC
How Much Research Should Be Performed . . . ?
When to Consult Additional Sources
Tips for Contacting Agencies
General Field Specific Guidelines
043 - See from Tracing
1xx and 4xx
4XX - See from Tracing
5XX - See Also from Tracing
670 - Source Data Found
678 - Biographical or Historical Data
781 - Subdivision Linking Entry - Geographic Subdivision
RDA
General Policies
Hybrid Records in RDA Name Authority Records
When to Recode an Existing NAR to RDA
How to Recode an Existing NAR from AACR2 to RDA
Field Specific Guidelines
$u and $v in the 046 and 3XX Optional Fields
Source of Information: 670 vs. $v in the 046 and 3XX Optional Fields
046 – Special Coded Dates
$2 – Source of Term
$s (start date or period) $t (end date or period)
336 - Content Type
368 - Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body
370 - Associated Place
371 – Address
372 – Field of Activity
373 – Association Group
377 – Associated Language
4XX – See from Tracing
5XX – See Also from Tracings
670 – Source Data Found
678 – Biographical or Historical Data
Personal Names
Procedure for ECIP
Procedure for CRS Reports
General Instructions
046 – Special Coded Dates (RDA 9.3)
$s and $t in the 046 and 3XX Optional Fields
100 – Authorized Access Point
$q – Fuller Form of Name
$d – Birth and/or Death Date
$c – Titles and Other Words (Professions) Associated with a Name
368 - Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body
370 - Associated Place (RDA 9.8-9.11)
371 - Address (RDA 9.12)
372 – Field of Activity (RDA 9.15)
373 – Associated Group (RDA 9.13: Affiliation)
374 – Profession or Occupation (RDA 9.16)
375 - Gender (RDA 9.7)
377 - Language (RDA 9.14)
378 – Fuller Form of Name (RDA 9.5)
400 - See from Tracing-Personal Name
510 - Related Corporate Body
678 - Biographical or Historical Data (RDA 9.17)
Corporate Names
Notes
Sources to Consult
Before You Begin
MARC Fields
110 - Corporate Name
Places Associated with the Corporate Body
Associated Institution
Names Containing the Word "Services"
111- Meeting Names
368 - Other Attributes of Corporate Body, $a Type of Corporate Body
370 - Associated Place
372 - Field of Activity
373 - Associated Group (11.5)
410/411 - See from Tracing
Initialism or Acronyms in Capital Letters
Variants for Names Containing Ampersands
410 - See from Tracing - Corporate Name
Variant Names Entered Subordinately
Place Names As Jurisdictions vs. Locations
Variant Names Entered Directly
Variants for Names Containing the Term “Inc.” or “Incorporated”
411 - See from Tracing - Meeting Name
Additional Identifying Element(s) for Initialisms/Acronyms in Variants for Meeting Names
510/511 – See Also from Tracing
Relationships and Relationship Designators
Mergers
510 - See Also from Tracing - Corporate Name
Hierarchical Superior Relationship
667 - Nonpublic Gen Note
678 - Biographical or Historical Data (11.11)
Works and Expressions
046 – Special Coded Dates (RDA 6.4 and 6.10)
130 – Authorized Access Point
336 – Content Type (RDA 6.9)
370 – Associated Place (RDA 6.5)
377 – Associated Language (RDA 6.11)
380 – Form of Work (RDA 6.3)
410/430 – Variant Authorized Access Points
667 – Nonpublic General Note
670 – Source Data Found
EXEMPLARS
Places
043 - Geographic Area Code
451 - See From Tracing
670 - Source Data Found
781 - Subdivision Linking Entry-Geographic Subdivision
AACR2
General Policies
Hybrid Records in RDA NARs
When to Recode an Existing NAR to RDA
How to Recode an Existing NAR from AACR2 to RDA
Field Specific Guidelines
5XX - See Also from Tracings
Personal Names
100 – Authorized Access Point
$q - Fuller Form of Name
400 – See from Tracing-Personal Name
678 – Biographical or Historical Data (RDA 9.17)
Corporate Bodies
Auth Status - 008/33
110 - Corporate Name
111 – Meeting Name
410/411 – Variant Name
5XX – See Also from Tracings
670 - Source Data Found
Places
043 - Geographic Area Code
451 - See from Tracing
670 – Source Data Found
781 - Subdivision Linking Entry-Geographic Subdivision
Subject Cataloging
General Policies
LC Subject Headings
NASA Thesaurus Terms As Subject Headings
MESH, NAL, and Other Non-LC Subject Headings
LC Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials
Adding General LCGFT to Bibliographic Records
Background Resources for LCGFT
Adding LCGFT to Cartographic Records
Adding LCGFT to Audiovisual Records
Subject Heading Proposals, Background, and Tips
Tips and Instructions
Internet Research
Subject Headings Manual
Searching Minaret
Add'l Minaret (Class Web) Tips
Scope Notes
Use of the Dictionary
Use of Wikipedia
Use of LSCH As a Thesaurus
References
Class Web or Minaret
SACO Resources
Subject Headings Manual
Print Resources
Resources for Geographic Proposals
Geographic Print Resources
Examples of GPO Subject Proposals
Subject Heading Proposals, Workflow
Submitting SACO Proposals for Internal Review
Producing Associated Bib Records; Exporting Subject Authority Records
Submitting SACO Proposals to the Library of Congress
Updating Aleph Authority File
Name vs Subject Authority File
Overview
Instructions
Name Headings As Subjects
Special Topics, Materials, Subdivisions, Etc.
Environmental Impact Statements
Legal Topics
Research
Other Metadata Schemes
Dublin Core
ONIX
Glossary
Initialisms and Acronyms
List of Major Changes to the Cataloging Guidelines

Download PDF

PDF download

Please Note: The online guidelines are updated frequently. Superseded text is replaced by new text or deleted. The PDF version is published semiannually.

yellow question mark flat

Questions on the GPO-specific practices outlined in the guidelines should be submitted via askGPO. Please indicate "Cataloging: Policies & Practices" in the subject area.