The spectrum of available coding methods examined included: (1) structured codes which reflect characteristics of the individual serials; (2) derivative codes, which, while partially reflecting characteristics of the serial, are derived from the expression of one or more of the characteristics; and (3) registration codes which have only the property of unique identity. Because the one consistent characteristic of the serial is change, and this applies to each of the descriptive elements of the series, a registration code for serials has been selected. A fundamental requirement for a registration system is central control of the registration process. In the case of serials an equally critical element is the definition and description of the serial entities to be assigned numbers. The Library of Congress has agreed to serve as the registration center subject to the availability of the necessary funds, manpower, and space. This responsibility includes interpreting the definition of a serial,' distributing directories of serial number assignments, circulating data on revisions and correctons, making cross references between serial numbers, and encouraging the use of standard serial numbers. Suggestions for improvement gained in the use of this standard will be welcome. They should be sent to the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10018. AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR 1. Purpose and scope SERIAL PUBLICATIONS This standard defines the structure of a concise, unique, and unambiguous code for serial publications. The code is solely for the identification of serials. It recognizes that the assignment of the code numbers must be centrally administered. 2. Definitions Serial. A publication issued in successive parts bearing numerical or chronological designations and intended to be continued indefinitely.1 3. Code description 3.1 Format. The code is a registration number composed of seven decimal digits plus an eighth check digit. The check digit is calculated as outlined in the Appendix. The external representation, that is, the code, when used in publication, is formatted in two groups of four digits, the two groups being separated by a hyphen (XXXX-XXXX) wherein each X is a digit, all of which must be present. The hyphen is an aid to recognition. The eighth digit is the check digit. 3.2 Characteristics of the code 3.2.1 Uniqueness. A unique, one-to-one correspondence exists between each assigned code number and the serial to which it is assigned, so that for each code number there is only one serial and for each serial there is only one code number. 3.2.2 Permanency of Assignment. The relationship between code number and serial, once established through assignment, is permanent. 3.2.3 Immutability of Format. The format of the code as specified will not change. 3.2.4 Conciseness. The code contains sufficient digits to achieve uniqueness and provide for error checking but is otherwise as short as possible. 3.2.5 Error Reduction and Detection. The code has two error reduction characteristics which aid in accuracy in use: an easily read format for error avoidance, and a check digit for error detection. 4. Application 4.1 Assignment. The assignment of code numbers will be administered by a central authority which will interpret cataloging rules and definitions as re quired. This includes working definitions of serials and the distinction between serial entities involved in splits, mergers, title changes, and other anomalies. 1 Definition from Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. Chicago: American Library Association, 1967, glossary, pp. 343-347. Prior to the assignment of a code number, the central authority will obtain evidence that a given publication is a serial. 4.2 Dissemination. The central authority will maintain a record of code numbers assigned. The central authority will foster the broad availability of lists of code numbers. The central authority will promote the use of the code by encouraging the publishers of directories and serials to incorporate the code numbers in any directories of serials and on the serials themselves. PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATION OF THE CHECK DIGIT The use of a check digit helps guard against errors resulting from improper data transcription. The check digit is particularly effective in detecting transposition errors. The check digit used is calculated on a Modulus 11 basis as indicated in Table A1. Procedure TABLE A1.-PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATION OF THE CHECK DIGIT 1. Write the digits of the basic number.. Example 1 2. Write the constant weighting factors associated with each position of the 8 basic number. 3. Multiply each digit by its associated weighting factor.... 4. Sum the products of the multiplications.. 5. Divide the sum by the modulus 11 to find the remainder. 6. Subtract the remainder from Modulus 11 to generate the required check digit. If the check digit is 10, generate a check digit of X. If there is no remainder, generate a check digit of zero. 8 8+ 14+ 19+ 20+ 20+ 18+14=112 112+11-10 plus a remainder of 2 11-2=9 7. Append the check digit to create the standard 8-digit standard serial number 1234-5679 (SSN). 1 Use of Modulus 11 can sometimes result in a check digit of 10. If this were used, the standard serial number would not always be the required eight digits in length. Therefore, the X is used to represent the check digit 10, thus maintaining the uniform length of eight digits. AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS The standard in this booklet is one of nearly 4,000 standards approved to date by the American National Standards Institute, formerly the USA Standards Institute. The Standards Institute provides the machinery for creating voluntary standards. It serves to eliminate duplication of standards activities and to weld conflicting standards into single, nationally accepted standards under the designation "American National Standards." Each standard represents general agreement among maker, seller, and user groups as to the best current practice with regard to some specific problem. Thus the completed standards cut across the whole fabric of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. American National Standards, by reason of Institute procedures, reflect a national consensus of manufacturers, consumers, and scientific, technical, and professional organizations, and governmental agencies. The completed standards are used widely by industry and commerce and often by municipal, state, and federal governments. The Standards Institute, under whose auspices this work is being done, is the United States clearinghouse and coordinating body for standards activity on the national level. It is a federation of trade association, technical societies, professional groups, and consumer organizations. Some 1,000 companies are affiliated with the Institute as company members. The American National Standards Institute is the United States member of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the Pan American Standards Commission (COPANT). Through these channels American industry makes its position felt on the international level. American National Standards are on file in the libraries of the national standards bodies of more than 50 countries. For a free list of all American National Standards, write: AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, INC., 1430 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10018. APRIL 8, 1975. To: Working Group Conference on Resolution of Copyright Issues. The Committee (Joan Titley Adams, Andrea Albrecht, James Barsky, Paul Fasana, Efren Gonzalez, Erich Meyerhoff, Gordon Randall, David Waite and Paul G. Zurkowski) met on Monday, April 7, 1975 at Academic Press, 111 5th Ave., New York City (2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.). The language of two documents, AgenDoc 3-WG-3/4/75, "Mechanisms and Criteria for Royalty Payments and/or Clearance and Licensing Procedures,” and AgenDoc 5-WG 3/19/75, "Elements in Photocopy Transactions," was closely evaluated. As a final step the committee measured the details of the Flowcharts against the Criteria. The detailed comments on AgenDocs 3 & 5 are included in the Appendices to this report. The Committee applied a critical test to both the Criteria and the Mechanism. The major points developed include: Point 1.-Any mechanism must provide a method for the user to determine whether the contemplated copying falls within the inclusive dates of a stated fee period. Point 2.-A system based exclusively on duplicate copies of the first page of the copied journal article in "hard copy" does not provide a royalty payment mechanism for copying accomplished in microfilm, telefax, video, etc. Point 3.-It is recognized that there are costs to the library intrinsic to a royalty payment mechanism. If these costs can be clearly defined, it must be determined how the costs shall be borne. Point 4.-The mechanism was evaluated for interlibrary copy transactions. No evaluation was made of either the criteria or the mechanism for other than interlibrary copy transactions. The Committee concluded that the mechanism and the criteria offer a basis for further discussions. Comments by Committee on Evaluation of Criteria in AgenDoc 3. Criterion 1. No objection to machine readable input so long as eye-readable indicia are used to enable parties to know the facts of a transaction. Criterion 2. O.K., no committee comments. Criterion 3. Procedure of mechanism must be readily understood by all including the lowest level clerical personnel. Mechanism for dealing the making of copy of part of an article still is unresolved. Suggested language change: Change "any one article" to read "each article." Criterion 4. (a) O.K., no committee comments. (b) Publisher should not print notice requiring royalty where it is not so entitled. (i.e. if an article is in public domain.) (c) Definition of inclusive period needs further work (see Committee Point 1). It was noted that copyright constitutes a bundle of rights and that establishing a specified fee period for single copy copying does not mean publisher gives up other rights in copyright. (d) The price per page question was discussed in the context of copying less than the whole article. The Committee felt simplicity in the system required payment of the "per article" fee over the complexities that would be introduced to cover partial article copying. (e) O.K., no committee comments. (f) Was considered to be too general and that words such as "costly or complex" were indefinite and would stand in the way of attaining agreement. Committee recommended its Point 3 be incorporated in lieu of 4f. (g) O.K., no committee comments. Criterion 5. O.K. The clear implication of this criterion is that any materials which do not contain the prescribed indicia would, after the legislated beginning date, be exempt from payment of single copy copying royalties. APPENDIX B Comments by Committee on Evaluation of Flow Charts in AgenDoc 5. I. The title of the Flow Charts at p. 2 & 4 and elsewhere should read: "Elements in Photocopy Transactions." II. At p. 3, data elements 7 and 10 can best be accomplished by LB by one of the following means: A. A date stamp applied to each duplicate copy of the first page. The stamp should incorporate LB's identification. In this way each document contains all the necessary data elements. B. An overlay of the ILL or copy request form which would provide data elements 7 and 10 as well as others. This was the publishers' preferred method, but it would be expected that data element 1 would, in many cases, be obliterated so as to protect the privacy of the user. This method would assure that each documents contains reference to data elements 7 & 10. C. As earlier considered by the Working Group, a cover sheet for each copying period might be included with the first pages being sent to the clearinghouse. The committee felt this would frustrate accurate accounting at the clearinghouse since the first pages, if once separated from the cover sheet, could not be assigned accurately to the appropriate source library. III. An additional data element 12 providing the "inclusive date" for fee payment (see committee Point 1). This, like data elements 4, 8 and 11, would be preprinted on the first page of each article by the publisher. Thus, the mechanism is understood to call for the publisher to preprint data elements 4, 8, 11 and 12 on the first page of each article to signify its participation in the mechanism. IV. If more than one article appears or begins on a single page, LB would indicate (as part of data element 10) which of the multiple printed prices pertains. V. On page 3, after data element 9 underline LB and after data element 10 underline LA. For newly added data element 12 (inclusive fee date) under LA, LB, SC, CH and list but do not underline PR. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, Chicago, Ill., April 10, 1975. MEMORANDUM To: Working Group Conference on Resolution of Copyright Issues. Subject: Recommendations to the Conference on April 24. The preceding discussions focused upon the development of a mechanism which could conceivably be applied to account for photocopying activities in lieu of interlibrary loan offer us an excellent opportunity to make significant progress toward a possible resolution of the copyright issues. In order to build upon the work of those who developed the details of the mechanism, I would like to propose that, in addition to reporting to our parent group the progress we have made, we also announce that we are commencing a three month test program to come up with some hard statistics with which to evaluate the administrative feasibility of the mechanism. These data will also give us the opportunity to evaluate the mechanism in terms of what is actually being done in libraries. The test data will be gathered from several representative communities of libraries located in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in different parts of the country. All libraries in the area will be included with the exception of school libraries. This exception is consistent with the ALA Interlibrary Loan Code. All 263 SMSA's will be analyzed with respect to library holdings. We expect that the distribution according to size will create four groups from which we will choose one area from each group for the test. An alternative approach would be to analyze the SMSA's according to population. However, a preliminary analysis shows that there is little relationship between library holdings and population because of the anomalies caused by large universities being located in small towns, etc. A basic assumption is that the larger the holdings of an SMSA, the larger will be the number of journal interlibrary loans. 1. The specific libraries included in the test will be instructed in the data gathering procedures. 2. The libraries will provide information on all interlibrary loan requests for journal articles which they fill for other libraries. 3. These data will be analyzed with respect to the frequency and rankings by specific journal and specific publisher within each SMSA. 4. The geographic patterns of borrowing and lending among the libraries will be analyzed. I strongly urge that these test data be gathered at the earliest opportunity. Toward this end we should recommend that the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science assume the responsibility for sponsoring this program. Recommendation by Working Group: That the Conference recommend to NCLIS that NCLIS assume the responsibility for financing and co-sponsoring with the Conference a study such as suggested in AgenDoc 9 with an understanding that such a study would include some testing of a payment mechanism. APPENDIX 4 MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS This appendix 4 is composed of miscellaneous communications. Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September 8, 1975. Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,D.C. DEAR BOB: It has recently been brought to my attention by Fritz Henle, Photographer, that your Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice is currently considering H.R. 2223, a general revision of the Copyright Law. In the enclosed correspondence from Mr. Henle, he indicates that certain revisions, specifically the institutional reproduction section, would be detrimental to his rights as a creator of fine photographs. I would appreciate your consideration of this particular section when the mark-up session begins. Apparently, there is a language problem which is creating quite a controversy. With kind personal regards, I am Sincerely, Enclosures. RON DE LUGO, Member of Congress. |