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.


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).

Cataloging/Metadata Encoding Levels Policies

1.0 Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to describe how LTS will apply levels of cataloging/metadata to the creation and processing of bibliographic records and to delineate the characteristics and applications of each level in accordance with international and national standards and local practices and procedures.

The guidance set forth herein does not preclude exceptions in particular situations such as individual records or entire projects. No provision of these policies precludes the possibility of raising or lowering the level of cataloging/metadata for any workflow, category of publications, record set, individual record, etc.

The intent of establishing this framework is to provide greater flexibility and adaptability in managing and coordinating LTS's cataloging/metadata responsibilities and challenges. The framework acts as a tool for LTS to meet the expanding demands on and widening scope of cataloging/metadata creation and maintenance.

Staff will consult with supervisors when they judge that the level of cataloging/metadata should be different than the assigned level.

2.0 Background and Related Documents

The GPO Cataloging Guidelines [current edition, 2013- ] may be searched to identify various sections that address encoding level.

The GPO Cataloging Guidelines (fourth edition, 2002, with updates of April 2007 and March 2008) addresses levels of cataloging and encoding level in various sections:

Abridged Cataloging – pages 5-13 and 182-183
Adapting OCLC Data Base Records, 5. Encoding/Authentication Level and 6. Special Information Added – pages 18-25
Collection-Level Records, C. Level of Records - pages 41-42
Corporate Bodies Access Points – pages 49-53
Electronic Resources, 1. Level of Records – page 60
Cataloging an Online File Using an Online File Record – page 70
Technical Reports, Adapting Existing Records – page 177

BCS Guidance, Processing Priorities in Cataloging – issue date, 7/12/12; effective date, 9/27/12; superseded by this document

3.0 Guidelines and Standards Consulted

CONSER Editing Guide, B6. CONSER Record Requirements: CONSER Standard Records and Minimal Level Records
Descriptive Cataloging Manual, B11. Minimal Level Cataloging (MLC): Books and B16. Core Level Cataloging
International Standard Bibliographic Description (Consolidated Edition)
MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data, Leader 17 - Encoding level and National Level Full and Minimal Requirements
OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards, ELvl: Encoding Level and 2.3 Full, Core, Minimal, and Abbreviated-Level Cataloging
RDA D.1 ISBD Presentation

4.0 Coordination with Collection Development Procedures

This framework will be implemented in coordination with collection development policies and procedures and will complement collection development goals and priorities.

5.0 General Principles

With this document, LTS establishes its policies for setting the level of cataloging/metadata for general and specific cataloging/metadata workflows and situations. LTS determines and selects encoding levels depending on the circumstances under which staff members create or adapt bibliographic records or the methods by which LTS obtains bibliographic records. The decision may be based on one or more factors:

  • Cataloging/metadata workflow to be used
  • Source of the bibliographic records
  • Volume of records to be cataloged and/or processed
  • Presence of appropriate encoding levels in the records

In respect to copy cataloging and ingesting record sets from partners, agencies, or libraries, the following guidance does not mean that the extent and depth of the cataloging/metadata present in the records must be changed to meet these standards. If the metadata exceeds the provisions of any level, that does not necessitate the modification of the metadata.

LTS does not remove metadata elements from records when the level of cataloging/metadata of the records does not require those elements. For the most part, LTS follows the principle of retaining pre-existing metadata elements that are accurate and well-formed.

All applicable local fields are recorded at every level.

5.1 General Cataloging/Metadata Workflows - Individual Records

In the course of creating and adapting individual bibliographic records, LTS follows the provisions of the GPO Cataloging Guidelines, the Superintendent of Documents Classification Guidelines, and all other applicable standards and procedures.

Exceptions to current, general practices are contained in section 6.0, Cataloging Levels Chart.

5.2 Project and Retrospective Cataloging

LTS usually decides on the level of cataloging to apply to all records in a project or a group of historic publications to be cataloged retrospectively before work commences. This decision is recorded in the project documentation. Modifications to the level of cataloging may be made during the life-cycle of a project depending on various factors, such as the number of records, the type and kind of metadata that is being adapted, if any, or if original cataloging is required.

5.3 Batch Processing of Record Sets

When LTS obtains large sets of bibliographic records, LTS accepts the encoding levels of the records as part of the batch processing of the sets. LTS analyzes the record sets before ingest into Aleph and reviews the encoding levels of the records for accuracy and appropriateness. When the records are enhanced by automated or individual actions, the encoding level will be modified only in exceptional situations.

LTS may obtain record sets from Federal depository libraries, partner institutions, Federal agencies, and other organizations or may utilize systems and tools, such as OCLC Collection Manager, to generate record sets.

5.4 Categories of Federal Information Products

LTS may establish a level of cataloging/metadata for all resources in a particular category of Federal information products, such as single-sheet informational pamphlets, IRS forms, or historic documents superseded by more current editions or versions.

LTS will document such determinations and disseminate these decisions. In some cases, 922 fields will be added to the preliminary records or brief bibs to indicate at which level they should be cataloged.

5.5 922 Codes

The 922 levels of cataloging codes are pre-assigned to records to indicate at what level they should be cataloged. When a record of a higher encoding level is available in OCLC:

  • Disregard the 922 code
  • Adapt the available record following all applicable guidelines, policies, and procedures
  • Do not change or delete the 922 code

6.0 Cataloging Levels Chart

Cataloging Level Encoding Level Metadata Elements Access Points Priority Levels Examples of Ingest Streams and Workflows 922 Code
Full (PCC) Blank All descriptive elements *
Subject headings SuDoc/Item
Complete authority work
for all access points
High- and regular-priority resources** BIBCO/CONSER records


General cataloging workflow of SuDoc assignments
I Same as Full (PCC) Same as Full (PCC), with exceptions listed in GPO Cataloging Guidelines High- and
General cataloging workflow of SuDoc assignments

Congressionals (temporarily only, pending completion of authority work)
(material not examined)#
1 All descriptive elements* available on an existing description
Subject headings
SuDoc/Item numbers
As derived from existing description Variable Retrospective conversion

Unreported publications when items cannot be inspected and surrogates are infeasible to procure
Minimal K All descriptive elements*
One corporate body access point
One subject heading
SuDoc/Item numbers
Use established forms when available

Otherwise use fullest form of names on resources
Variable Copy cataloging projects

Large record sets obtained for ingest from partners, agencies, Federal Depository libraries

Automated/batch-processed record sets with minimal or no reviews/edits of individual records
Brief bibliographic records
Preliminary 5

Title/Statement of responsibility
Place, Publisher & Date of publication
Physical description
Notes, including:

Preliminary record: in process.
Full date when available

SuDoc (class stem or full)/Item numbers

Use fullest form of names on resources Low-priority resources Brief bibliographic records

Record sets obtained for ingest from agencies, libraries, etc., with minimal and/or non-standard metadata

Automated/batch-processed record sets with minimal additions/changes

*Defined for Areas 0-8 in: ISBD: International Standard Bibliographic Description (Consolidated edition), 2011.
**With exceptions
#GPO also uses Level 1 for records derived from related manifestations. In these cases, a note is added: Description based on record for related manifestation.

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.)

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

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.
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.
SuDoc: A 77.718/3:

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

[Integrating resources, closed]

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

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

[Serial record for a series, open]

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

Separate Record Policy

GPO’s record approach policy stipulates how many bibliographic records are needed to represent the various formats of a publication. GPO has followed two different record approaches over the years.

Current Policy: Separate-Record Approach

  • GPO’s current policy is to catalog an individual record for each format of a publication, such as print, online, and microfiche versions.
  • This is the separate-record approach, and it applies to records cataloged after October 1, 2008.

Previous Policy: Single-Record Approach

  • GPO previously cataloged multiple formats of a publication, such as print, online, and microfiche versions, on the same record.
  • This is the single-record approach, and it applies to records cataloged before October 1, 2008.

Policy Changes and Catalog Maintenance

GPO applied a single-record approach according to the guidelines in place at the time of cataloging. These records remain valid. GPO’s general policy is not to re-catalog valid records simply because the cataloging guidelines changed subsequently.

GPO will therefore only split single-record approach records into separate-record approach records when required in the regular course of cataloging (for example, CONSER serial and integrating resource records). See Procedures below for more details. GPO cannot fulfill libraries’ requests to split single-record approach records. Libraries are still welcome to split single-record approach records in their local catalogs.


In the 1980s, 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 1990s and focused on resources available from the Federal Bulletin Board (FBB). The electronic FBB resources were cataloged separately from the tangible versions of those publications. In 1995, CONSER adopted the single-record approach, described in the CONSER Cataloging Manual module 31. GPO began applying this approach in the same year. This approach was adopted to minimize the amount of time devoted to cataloging remote electronic resources, which were transitory in nature, and it 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, which required individual records, as well as adoption of an Integrated Library System (ILS) with which comprehensive holdings could be recorded, GPO found a greater need for separate records for each format. On October 1, 2008, GPO implemented a separate-record approach for all resources.


When performing retrospective cataloging or adding a record for a new format, and an older record is found in OCLC or CGP that combines data for multiple formats, the cataloger generally "splits" such a record into two (or more) records, each describing a single format. See Exceptions below for situations in which splitting the record would not be required.

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 item in hand. Single-record approach records cannot be split unless each format to be described by a separate record is in hand.

If an item is "in hand," (meaning, there is sufficient bibliographic information from any of the following sources for the cataloger to adequately adapt or create a new bibliographic record for that particular format), regardless of whether or not that format is distributed, that item is given full cataloging treatment:

  • CGP full bibliographic records
  • OCLC records that show GPO or DGPO holdings
  • historic shelflist cards
  • Monthly Catalog entries
  • surrogates
  • bibliographic records received from partner libraries

A pre-existing multiple format 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.)

If a single-record approach record exists in the CGP, and separate-record approach records are found in OCLC, the cataloger should adapt the OCLC separate-record approach records and replace the CGP single-record approach record. Only adapt a tangible-format record if the tangible is "in hand."

If a single-record approach record exists in the CGP, but no separate-record approach records are found in OCLC, the cataloger should create a new record for the additional format.

If 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. GPO holdings are added in OCLC for both the old and new records, and both records are exported to the CGP. The only caveat is that the cataloger should retain the online information (856, 074, 538, 530, etc.) in the older OCLC master record, but remove it from the CGP record.

When a new online version record is created using the same PURL that already existed in an older record which 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.

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.


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 (for example, correcting errors in old records). When searching OCLC, the cataloger may encounter one of the following four situations:

  • no records are found
  • a record is found for the format in question
  • a record is found for a different format, and the record describes only that different format (separate-record approach)
  • a record is found for a different format, and the record includes information about 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 in 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 derive a new online record from the tangible record, because his/her workload is minimally affected.

When correcting errors in an old single-record 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.

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.

776 08 ǂi 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.”

GPO Sales Program Information

As of January 2, 2019, GPO will no longer add the following metadata elements in newly cataloged records:

  • 037 - GPO stock numbers
  • 264 _2 - “For sale by the Superintendent of Documents” statements
  • 500 - Notes indicating the sales status of publications or any other aspect of the GPO Sales Program

Original Cataloging

There are two exceptions to this policy:

  • Continue to record ISBNs, as they are universal unique identifiers.
  • In ECIP records, continue to transcribe the “For sale by the Superintendent of Documents” statements in accordance with the Library of Congress practice as stated in the Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statement

CGP 1092366
245 10 Taiwan's offshore islands
264 _1 Newport, Rhode Island : ǂb Naval War College Press, ǂc 2019.
264 _2 Washington, DC : ǂb For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Copy Cataloging

  • Do not change or delete existing GPO Sales Program information when adapting or updating records in OCLC or updating records in the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications.

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.