Introduction
The Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs) provide for a common practice, sometimes called "national" practice. (FN 1 ) This is the practice followed by the Library of Congress and all other libraries engaged in the bibliographic enterprise that has now taken on an international dimension. Libraries may participate in various ways. They may choose to participate informally or formally. If the latter, it may be through general programs such as the former National Coordinated Cataloging Program (NCCP), through the various programs of the current Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), such as the Name Authority Cooperative Project (NACO) or the Bibliographic Cooperative Project (BIBCO, successor to NCCP) or through the currently separate Cooperative Online Serials Program (CONSER).
With the expansion of over recent years of several cooperative cataloging programs coordinated by the Library of Congress, it is necessary to identify cataloging practices that apply to the various discrete programs. Moreover, it is incumbent upon the Library of Congress to make decisions to provide common practice in order to share bibliographic and authority records for the common good, which may at times be at odds with local needs. One means of doing this is distinguishing in the LCRIs among practice that is applicable nationally, practice that is applicable only to LC, or practice that is applicable at some combined level, usually applicable to LC in combination with a formal program such as CONSER or NACO. Thus the introductory phrase "LC practice:" signals a practice applicable solely to LC; it is discretionary for other libraries. The phrase "LC/CONSER practice:" is applicable to LC and other members of CONSER but is discretionary for other libraries. A new phrase "LC/NACO practice:" was introduced in the summer of 1996. Practice introduced by this phrase is applicable to LC and to those libraries that are NACO participants contributing authority records to the national authority file. In the case of series, the practice applies to LC and to those NACO libraries that contribute series explain that practice to users of the resulting records. Furthermore, use of a particular level of practice makes it possible on the one hand to document a practice within a context that required a certain level of consistency, such as that of contribution of series authority records to the national authority file, while on the other hand does not constrain those libraries that choose not to contribute series authority records.
Based on a recommendation of the CPSO/PCC Task Group on LC-Issued Descriptive Cataloging Documentation and beginning in November 1995, the orientation of the LCRIs has shifted to that of bibliographic control in a machine-readable environment. LCRIs issued from that date on will no longer contain terminology specific to 3" x 5" images of bibliographic data. In addition, they will contain examples using the content designation conventions of USMARC, slightly modified in form for clarity of presentation such that each subfield code is preceded and followed by a space.
Also for clarity, the content designated examples appear in a monotype font in order to reflect spacing accurately.
Part of the charge of the CPSO/PCC task group is to make recommendations with respect to including in AACR2 material from existing LCRIs. Such recommendations are indicated in newly issued LCRIs by means of bracketed footnote statements beginning "Recommended future placement."
Preface:
The text of this second edition of the looseleaf service for Library of Congress Rule Interpretations includes all valid LCRIs issued through December 1988. The rule numbers used are those found in the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, second edition, 1988 revision. With this second edition of the looseleaf service, Library of Congress catalogers will begin to follow this edition of the LCRIs, rather than the former in-house "notebook" version. This will necessitate one new feature: note the footnotes beginning For Library of Congress descriptive catalogers only. These footnotes will be used for directions to Library of Congress staff about distinctly local matters not appropriate in the published text of the interpretation. LCRI not in the first edition are indicated as [New]. LCRI that, although in the first edition, have undergone a rule number change in the 1988 edition have the former rule number indicated in brackets. Although not new, it might be noted that lines in the left margin are used to indicate new, revised, or deleted data.
The formulation of LCRIs at the Library of Congress follows a process in which drafts are written in the Office for Descriptive Cataloging Policy and then circulated to Library of Congress staff for comments. These drafts are also distributed, when appropriate, to participants in the National Cooperative Cataloging Operation (NACO). The finally published versions then are the product of a diffuse authorship, both for substance and for wording. The published versions that appear in Cataloging Service Bulletin and in this looseleaf edition also have the attention of the editor of Cataloging Service Bulletin (currently Robert M. Hiatt, assistant to the director for cataloging, Processing Services), who expands local abbreviations, deletes references to local or temporary situations (though deleted from the published text of the LCRIs, now included on the same page in the form of a footnote, cf. first paragraph), etc. He also makes a few wording changes to clarify a statement for the library community at large. Finally, the editor is responsible for the compilation and editorial preparation of this cumulation.
The process described above is necessary because of the large number of descriptive catalogers at the Library of Congress (altogether more than 250 people in five different divisions), which number required that answers to questions about the rules by provided by the Office for Descriptive Cataloging Policy in written form, to ensure that there is a uniform policy for descriptive cataloging. These written statements, however, encompass both interpretations of rules and other types of statements, e.g., decisions on options and alternative rules; or documentation of routines related to the rules (e.g., many statement about verification of geographic names in LCRI 23.2, or statement in LCRI 26 about evaluating existing reference structures).
Ben R. Tucker
Chief
Office for Descriptive Cataloging Policy
See also:
Library of Congress Rule Interpretations: Contents
