Cataloging & Classification Quarterly
Volume 41, no. 1, 2004
Sandy Roe, News Editor
Welcome to the news column. Its purpose is to disseminate information on any aspect of cataloging and classification that may be of interest to the cataloging community. This column is not just intended for news items, but serves to document discussions of interest as well as news concerning you, your research efforts, and your organization. Please send any pertinent materials, notes, minutes, or reports to: Sandy Roe, Milner Library, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-8900 (email: email@example.com, phone: 309-438-5039). News columns will typically be available prior to publication in print from the CCQ website at http://www.catalogingandclassificationquarterly.com.
We would appreciate receiving items having to do with:
Research and Opinion
Abstracts or reports of on-going or unpublished research
Bibliographies of materials available on specific subjects
Analysis or description of new technologies
Call for papers
Comments or opinions on the art of cataloging
Notes, minutes, or summaries of meetings, etc. of interest to catalogers
Description of grants
Description of projects
Announcements of changes in personnel
Announcements of honors, offices, etc.
2004 Online Audio-Visual Catalogers (OLAC) Conference, Expanding Access-Connecting the Global Community to a Multitude of Formats, held Oct. 1-3, 2004 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada*
Descriptive Cataloging of Music Scores presented by Rachel Gagnon, Library and Archives Canada
Rachel Gagnon, music cataloger in the Monograph Cataloging Division, Acquisitions and Bibliographic Services, Library and Archives Canada, led this workshop focused on published printed music. The first thing the cataloger must determine is if the item to be cataloged is actually published. If material is determined to be unpublished, the cataloger must follow the rules in AACR2 Chapter 4 (in addition to the rules in Chapters 1 and 5, and several in Chapter 2). When cataloging unpublished materials written on pre-lined staff paper, it is important not to consider the name of the paper printer to be a publisher!
Another consideration to be made when cataloging is to determine whether the item in hand is really printed music, or is better described as a monograph or some other format. This decision will affect the choice of AACR2 rules and MARC coding. Rachel cautioned catalogers not to agonize but advised that we be consistent once a decision has been made.
A third consideration when cataloging music is to determine if this item has been cataloged in the past. Before creating a new record, consult the definition of “Edition” in AACR2, Appendix D, LCRI 1.0 and OCLC documentation (as appropriate to the situation). Rachel outlined the various criteria used to determine whether or not a new record is required, and when it is acceptable to create an additional record for the same item.
The bulk of the presentation was devoted to a detailed explanation of the rules for the descriptive cataloging of printed music found in Chapter 5. The chief source of information and prescribed sources of information were discussed, followed by title (MARC 245), added titles (246, 740), edition (250), musical presentation statement (254), publication, distribution, etc. (260), physical description (300), notes, and standard numbers, e.g., ISBN, ISMN (020, 024).
A major complication in choice of main entry for printed music has to do with arrangements. Guidance covering main entry is comprised in Rules 21.18 to 21.22. Collections with and without collective titles are treated in 21.7. Rule 21.4C (and the associated Music Cataloging Decisions [MCD]) covers works erroneously or fictitiously attributed to a person. Guidance for arrangements and adaptations can be found in Rule 21.18, again with some associated MCDs. Other special situations (musical works with words, added accompaniments, liturgical music, and related works, such as cadenzas and librettos) are also covered in Chapter 21.
Uniform titles can be used for several different purposes. They can bring together all catalog entries for a work when various manifestations of the work have appeared under various titles. Uniform titles also provide the means for identifying a work when the title by which it is known differs from the title proper of the item being cataloged, and for differentiating between two or more works published under identical titles proper. Finally, uniform titles can be used to organize the file. Uniform titles are formulated according to rules in AACR2, Chapter 25 (as well as associated MCDs). There are six steps to building a “normal” uniform title: choosing the initial title element, manipulating the initial title element, making additions to generic initial title elements to make it distinctive, adding further identifying elements to resolve conflicts, adding designations representing parts of a whole, and adding terms that indicate the manifestation in hand.
In the Library of Congress classification scheme, schedule M is devoted to music. Subclasses include M (instrumental and vocal music), ML (literature on music) and MT (musical instruction and study). The “glossary and general guidelines” page found at the beginning of the printed schedule includes several important definitions, such as “collection”, “continuo”, and “set”. The final section of the handout includes many useful references for music cataloging tools and Websites.
University of Minnesota
Cataloging Cartographic Materials on CD-ROMs presented by Karen Jensen, McGill University
Karen Jensen, the Science Cataloging Librarian at McGill University, combined her cataloging, geographical, and teaching knowledge to bring OLAC this workshop. Using a practical approach, Karen combined rules from Chapters 3 and 9 of AACR2 to cover how to catalogue maps, atlases, and cartographic data issued on CD-ROMs. Karen defined three main types of electronic cartographic data: scanned images of maps, electronic atlases, and geospatial data. She showed examples of each. Karen also distinguished vector geospatial data (representing geographic features as points, lines, and polygons) from raster data (image information).
Commercially published cartographic CD-ROMs frequently have plenty of bibliographic information on the disc label and accompanying guides. The attendees were cautioned, however, that much geospatial data is often distributed non-commercially without any special packaging. Sometimes the cataloger will need to hunt for information about the file by loading the disc and searching for a “read me” file. Often cartographic CD-ROMs contain a file with metadata that is very helpful in creating a MARC record.
Karen carefully reviewed the cartographic-specific and electronic-specific fields of the fixed fields (008) and variable fields. Subject analysis and Library of Congress classification were also discussed. LC classifies all cartographic CD-ROMs as maps and does not use the atlas range of the G schedule, reserving that range for print atlases. The last portion of the workshop was spent reviewing real examples of electronic cartographic cataloging. Karen helpfully highlighted the particular features of each record, including electronic atlases, scanned maps, and geospatial data.
The presenter highly recommended several resources, such as Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpretation for AACR2, 2002 Revision, edited by Elizabeth Mangan, and Cataloging Electronic-Resources Cartographic Materials: The Basics, by Mary Lynette Larsgaard. Slides of this presentation and the examples can be found at http://www.mcgill.ca/libraries-techserv/reports/librarian/.
Rebecca L. Lubas
Cataloging Unpublished Oral History Interviews and Collections presented by Marsha Maguire, University of Washington
The rules for cataloging oral histories are very similar to those for unpublished archival materials. Ms. Maguire’s presentation centered on the rules for cataloging oral histories; the nature of the materials one might encounter, including a distinction between interviews, projects and collections; and the description of these materials.
Maguire provided a bibliography of useful sources, including Oral History Cataloging Manual by Marion Matters and published by the Society of American Archivists. Oral history cataloging uses AACR2 for physical description, but relies heavily on Hansen’s Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts (APPM) for the rest of the description.
An oral history interview may consist of an individual interview or a sequence of interviews with the same person(s) or may have similar intent. It involves a question/answer interactive format conducted by an interviewer, and is intended to be made accessible to the public. It is not a recorded, edited memoir. An oral history project is a series of oral history interviews documenting a topic, and generally has its own formal title, much like a corporate entry. An oral history collection is less formal, containing oral history materials not associated with an official project. It may or may not have a theme or focus. Generally, a cataloger would create a new record for each interview, as well as a parent record for a project or a collection. Maguire suggested doing a skeletal version of the parent record first, in order to have an OCLC record number that could be used in the 773 field of each interview record for linking purposes. The parent record can then be enhanced after the interview records are in place. However, the parent record should not include links to the individual interviews. These records can be as detailed as one’s institution requires, and depend largely on the cataloger’s judgment and institutional policy.
Maguire explained in detail the elements that are required in a record. She went over each MARC tag, including fixed fields, and made distinctions between conventions for published materials and for unpublished works. In particular, there can be multiple 300 fields to allow for multiple formats of the same interview, if, for example, there were a video recording, a sound recording, and a transcript of the same text/interview. Also, there is no 260 field, not even including a year ($c), since an oral history is an unpublished work, nor a GMD, unless the unit description consists solely of one format
In addition to the bibliography, her handouts included practice exercises, templates, and an excerpt from the Processing Manual of the Minnesota Historical Society (http://www.mnhs.org/library/processingmanual/library/20.html). She also encouraged interested parties to look at the Library of Congress Veterans History Project which is currently collecting oral histories (http://www.loc.gov/folklife/vets/).
University of Mississippi
Improving Access to Audio-Visual Materials by Using Genre/Form Terms presented by Robert L. Maxwell, Brigham Young University
Robert L. Maxwell conducted this informative workshop by actively leading the participants in a group discussion of several important questions related to providing genre/form access. The catalog of Brigham Young University's Lee Library features extensive provision of a wide variety of genre and form headings, differentiates them from their subject heading "cousins," and includes authority control for these headings. The focus of the session was nevertheless on helping the attendees to think through the associated issues for themselves, to develop solutions appropriate to a variety of library settings.
It is fairly well established that genre/form headings represent “what something is, not what it is about”. This simple concept can still be complicated by a number of factors, including the reality that many genre/form terms are identical with subject terms. People seek materials in a given form or genre for a variety of reasons, but it is possible that there are two primary motivations: either the desire for "something" in a given genre (e.g., a comedy movie for the weekend), or the need to limit a topical search by form (e.g., works on voter registration, limited to statistics). Providing some personal background, Maxwell mentioned that he had first become interested in genre/form issues while searching for a work on how to make pop-up books. Of the hundreds of hits under the pertinent subject heading, only three were actually “about” the form; the balance were instances of pop-up books themselves. This experience demonstrated that it is important to distinguish and clarify the different uses of identical headings.
Maxwell asked how things are accessed by form in current library catalogs. At present, this is accomplished by direct searching on data marked with MARC21 tags, or limiting search results by MARC21 tags or formats. The discussion mostly focused on the use of the bibliographic field 655, but other elements can be used, including subdivisions in 6XX subfield v, terms in the 300 field, and the GMD. The definition of field 655, “Index term-genre/form”, attempts to combine many different aspects of both works and items (in the FRBR sense), including the now-obsolete 755 field (Added entry--Physical Characteristics). It is useful to remember that older catalog records might still have genre/form headings in the 650 field or possibly the 755 field; also that music and literature headings will especially be found in field 650. While retrospective conversion of these fields is a management issue to consider, continuing the older practice confuses different types of content, impairs indexing, and makes future conversion projects more difficult.
A variety of questions relating to indexing and access were raised. Among them: Will an institution want to separate subjects (topics) from genres/forms, and, if so, how will this be accomplished within its given system? Will patrons be provided with browse access--as well as keyword access--to genre/form headings, and how will they be instructed regarding the difference? Considering consistency, how much revision of cataloging will be done: will it be limited to incoming copy or will it be applied retrospectively as well? What will be done in original cataloging? Here, participants stated that specific user needs may be the stimulus for retrospective work; for example, consistent provision and coding of the heading, “Video recordings for the hearing impaired”. Another participant observed that it may be necessary to add terms retrospectively for specific kinds of materials, where a concrete need has been identified.
Maxwell stressed the importance, for all aspects of genre/form provision, of making clear departmental policies and communicating them to other areas of the library operation, particularly public services. Such policies, in fact, may be created in collaboration with public services colleagues, especially when they proactively state an interest.
The existence of headings from multiple thesauri in a genre/form index presents several important considerations. There are currently over fifty thesauri authorized for use in field 655, mostly created and maintained by different bodies that do not consult with each other. Many of these thesauri are limited to particular disciplines or types of material, such as rare books, motion pictures, or graphic materials. Different terms may be used for the same concept, or the same term may be used for differing concepts. This is not an issue, of course, within the confines of a single controlled vocabulary; however, problems will arise when multiple thesauri are needed by an institution.
Not only will this synonymy/homonymy cause ambiguity, but another concern is that a particular heading may appear at different hierarchical levels in different thesauri. This has implications for the heading's meaning, since the semantic context will differ. Also, a set of items retrieved using a heading established at different hierarchical levels may be mixed in terms of significance, since the levels of granularity represented may also differ. Finally, different hierarchies also involve different networks of reference headings. These considerations were made clear in an exercise in which the heading “Diaries” was presented in three different hierarchies representing three distinct contexts: LCSH, the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), and Genre Terms for Rare Books (coded “rbgenr”). Participants discussed which hierarchy would be pertinent to their user groups, and why. There was also discussion of different approaches to reconciling multiple thesauri, the two primary techniques being either to establish a dominant thesaurus (e.g., LCSH) for genres and reconcile headings from other sources to it, or to use different thesauri for specific types of materials. One participant pointed out that “playing to your audience” is important. This means asking, what is the purpose for collecting a given type of item? The answer should influence the heading and/or the thesaurus chosen.
Authority control was the final major topic discussed. It is possible, of course, to provide genre/form access without authority control. However, authority control is preferable, since it provides consistency and helps direct the user’s search through reference headings. The downside, of course, is that authority control involves time and money, particularly given the present-day reality that Library of Congress does not yet create X55-based authority records. Nevertheless, a number of libraries have established authority records for their genre/form headings, so there is a body of experience on which to draw.
How would a library begin the project of providing authority control for genre/form terms? One approach would be to prioritize groups of terms that will receive control first, so that the work proceeds via conceptual clusters. It is also possible to control headings as they appear in new records, as a form of prioritization after the project has begun. A related question is whether or not to authorize entire genre/form strings, with subdivisions. The advantage of doing so is that unauthorized headings reports will be reduced. There are several ways to create authority records. They can be created “from scratch”, which is probably the most time-intensive method, but sometimes the only alternative in the case of some thesauri. In addition, existing LCSH records can be copied and manipulated to serve as genre/form records. This method involves a short series of relatively simple steps in systems that allow it. It is also possible to contract with authority vendors to provide these records. (As an aside, MARC21 authority records for the genre headings published in Guidelines for Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction, Drama, Etc. [GSAFD], are available at no charge at http://www.ala.org/ALCTSTemplate.cfm?Section=alctssectionscont&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=32959.)
Several more challenging questions and issues were raised by Maxwell and participants, clearly demonstrating that there is still a long way to go in genre/form applications before they become part of the mainstream in cataloging. This stimulating discussion was complemented by a very useful handout, which included the basic elements of MARC21 genre/form authority records, sample authority records, exercises, and an four closely-spaced pages of "Audio-visual form terms found in LCSH that could be used in 655 fields" for several material types.
Future of the GMD: What Can Be Done to Improve It or to Find Alternate Ways to Fulfill its Function?, workshop presented by Chris Oliver, McGill University
Chris Oliver, Head of Library Technical Services at the McGill University Libraries and the current chair of the Canadian Committee on Cataloging, was a member of the Format Variation Working Group, an international committee appointed by the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC). One of the tasks of this committee was linked to a larger JSC initiative to reexamine and possibly deconstruct the general material designation (GMD). She began her sessions by describing the history of GMDs from their genesis in AACR1 to their present function and problems with their use.
She examined the effects of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR held in Toronto in 1997 and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), and stated that the revision of AACR2’s rule 0.24 has impacted the GMD by eliminating its primacy as one of the important factors in descriptive cataloging. “If all relevant aspects are to be described, what does one do about the GMD?” Chris pointed out that some of the present GMDs would be appropriate for FRBR’s work and expression level while others would be more suited to the manifestation level.
She then introduced the audience to the proposals for the structure and content of AACR3 and asked the following questions (her suggestions for discussion are enclosed in parentheses):
1. Is there another way to communicate the information to the user? (icons, such as found in OCLC’s WorldCat; public display labels or terms generated through a table from the terms in the bibliographic record for content, expression, and/or manifestation)
2. If one retains the GMD, could it be placed elsewhere? (Area 3 for all types of resources; Area 0 preceding the bibliographic description)
3. Can we improve the list of terms used as GMDs? (single terms – same level of generality, mutually exclusive; compound terms, e.g., GMD (qualifier); compound term; GMD1 + GMD2)
The discussions that followed were very lively, especially in the first session. There was a strong consensus in both sessions that it is necessary to identify the format of an item early in the bibliographic record and that the method chosen must be an internationally recognized standard. Some participants liked the idea of an Area 0 because, when the GMD is buried in the descriptive cataloging, the longer the record, the less likely the format of an item was apparent to the catalogue user. However, there was some concern about the additional labor cost in adding an Area 0 to the record. Icons elicited both very positive and very negative comments.
There was much discussion about GMD terminology. While some people preferred the broader terms in AACR2’s present list 1 (“the British list”), many others wanted more specific user-friendly terms that would immediately tell an item’s format. One participant warned that very specific terms could lead to a GMD, such as “DVD region 3” or other wordy terms that would have to be standardized. Such standardization has been a continuing problem with new formats. Other participants favored the present list of GMDs with qualifiers added if necessary. One person remarked that with the increasing number of records for electronic resources in library catalogues it was time catalogers started using the GMD “text”.
Much of the discussion was only peripherally about AACR2 rules as it revolved around coding and OPAC displays. In both sessions it was suggested that JSC look at Amazon.com site to see how Amazon deals with format. In both sessions, also, a few participants recommended that JSC articulate the following before changing GMDs and explain clearly to the cataloging community why these changes will be an improvement and not an exchange of one set of problems for another.
1. What is the problem that JSC is trying to fix? Is it the concept of the GMD? The way it displays? The terminology?
After this question has been answered, JSC should state:
2. the function of a GMD or other method of indicating format
3. the degree of specificity mandated and why this specificity has been chosen
Chris Oliver invited the audience to send her any additional comments they might care to contribute. Her e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Videorecordings Cataloging Workshop, presented by Jay Weitz, OCLC
This workshop was a practical information session as well as a valuable educational experience for all those who attended. Jay Weitz focused on the issues in videorecording cataloging which raise the most questions.
Weitz began with a brief background of the basic rules of video cataloging. The chief source of information for a videorecording is the title frames. A cataloger may use the container (i.e., the actual item containing the tape), the label on the container, or the packaging of a videocassette. Catalogers should be alert to differences in titles, which oftentimes result in multiple bibliographic records in OCLC for what is most likely the same videorecording.
Differences that justify a new record include: black and white vs. color vs. colorized, sound vs. silent, significantly different length (full length vs. abridged version vs. theatrical release vs. director’s cut), different videorecording formats (VHS vs. BETA, vs. DVD), dubbed vs. subtitles, different language versions, and changes in publication dates (but being mindful that the changes in dates are not merely for the packaging). In fact, Weitz suggested that catalogers ignore dates of packaging altogether whenever possible and emphasized the point that it is impossible to have a publication date for a DVD that is earlier than late 1996 or early 1997. For further information on differences that justify creating a new record, Weitz recommended the recently released document on the ALCTS Website entitled, “Differences Between, Changes Within: Guidelines on When to Create a New Record”.
Weitz gave some history of various formats of videodiscs, including DVDs. Regardless of when the filming of the original motion picture took place, the publication date of the format cannot precede the introduction of or follow the demise of any particular format. Capacitance Electronic Discs, or CEDs, which are grooved, stylus-read and measure 12 inches in diameter, faded after 1984. The production and sale of laser optical discs (grooveless, laser-read, 12 inches in diameter) flourished between 1978-1999. DVDs (grooveless, laser-read, 4 ¾ inches in diameter) were introduced to the North American market in March 1997. He also gave some guidelines to follow for cataloging DVDs. The GMD is [videorecording]. The 300 field should contain videodisc(s) for the SMD and the size 4 ¾ in. The System Details note (538) should be used to record “DVD” plus any additional information about special sound, color, etc. (AACR2 7.7B10). The language note 546 is used to supply any information about language including closed captioning, subtitles, or dubbing. Recently the 04 position in the 007 field has been defined for DVDs with the code “v”. Catalogers should be certain to code the rest of the 007 to accurately describe a DVD. When it comes to dates, Weitz explained that the cataloger should consider items with substantial new or extra material as Type of Date code “s” in the 008 field. This includes any of the following on a DVD: trailers, outtakes, documentary material, interviews, or different versions or cuts of the motion picture. When catalogers encounter such a situation, they should consider the DVD to be a new edition and include a note about the date of original release.
Weitz spent the last portion of the workshop discussing streaming video. He defined streaming media as “an Internet data transfer technique that allows the user to see and hear audio and video files without lengthy download times. The host or source “streams” small packets of information over the Internet to the user”. Not many catalogers have handled this format yet.
The form of item in the fixed field and in the 008 field is coded “s” for electronic. An 006 and an 007 field for videorecordings is required as is an 007 field for electronic resource. The GMD is “[electronic resource]”. Typically, a 300 field is not used for remote resources. However, the 2004 amendments to AACR2R (implemented September 1, 2004) allow the cataloger to add a physical description as an optional rule.
The first note in a bibliographic record for streaming video should be a general note (500) indicating that it is streaming video, with (optionally) duration time supplied in parentheses. This is followed by a 538 for System Requirements and another 538 for Mode of Access. Finally, an 856 field for the URL is included. Some streaming videos do not have credits. If the title does not come from the streaming video itself, indicate in a note where this information was found (e.g., Title from home page, etc.)
One participant asked what information to put in the subfield “c” of the 245 field. Typically, it is appropriate to include producers, directors and writers in this subfield (e.g., those with “overall responsibility”). In instances of animated films, it would be appropriate to include chief animators and directors of animation. Any other names that the cataloger wanted to trace would be included in the 508 field. Weitz stressed that the cataloger should not agonize over making exceptions about what names to include in the statement of responsibility, especially when the name is important to the content of the work. For instance, it would be appropriate to include the name of a rock group in the statement of responsibility for a music video even though they are the performers, and not necessarily a producer, director or writer. In relation to other added entries, catalogers should follow LCRI 21.29D.
Another question was asked about how to treat a DVD that comes with DVD-ROM features. The answer: catalogue the item as a DVD and if special features require a computer, to include a note (538) for special requirements. Further, the cataloger should delineate in a note (500 or 505, as appropriate, the contents in the DVD-ROM feature. If the DVD-ROM aspect of the DVD were a significant portion of the work, it would be appropriate to include a 006 and a 007 field to bring out those features.
Laura M. May
Concordia University Libraries
Cataloging Electronic Resources presented by Linda Woodcock, Vancouver Public Library
Linda Woodcock, Head of the Catalogue Division of the Vancouver Public Library, presented a detailed workshop on Cataloging Electronic Resources that focused on remote-access electronic monographs and online integrating resources. The handouts consisted of sample catalog records, a list the coding for the fixed fields for textual integrating electronic resources, and a list of the significant rules from AACR2 for cataloging integrating electronic resources.
Woodcock began by noting the three basic questions to ask when cataloging any electronic resource:
1. What aspect of the resource is being cataloged (single page, single document, entire Website)?
2. What is the type of issuance (continuing [serial or integrating] or finite)?
3. What type of record should be created (text or computer file)?
LCRI 1.0 and AACR2 Chapters 9 & 12 provide guidance on answering these questions.
Woodcock used two catalog records, one for a remote-access electronic monograph and one for an electronic integrating resource, to explain the rules and rule interpretations from AACR2 chapters 9 & 12 for each field in each record. The highlights of the points she brought out were:
* The chief source of description of a monographic electronic resource is the entire resource itself; the chief source for an integrating resource is its latest iteration.
* A remote-access electronic monograph often has a traditional title page supplying the elements of description, but integrating resources usually supply descriptive elements in a variety of ways (formal title or home page, graphic image, main menu, HTML header from browser title bar), so the cataloger needs to choose the fullest form.
* AACR2 Rule 9.5B3 permits an extent statement (300 field) for remote-access electronic resources. The number of pages recorded is the number of pages shown by the document itself, not the number shown by the display/reader software.
* The required notes for remote access electronic monographs are: mode of access, system requirements, and source of title proper, which should include the date on which the resource was viewed.
* The 856 field can be used to record the URL of the resource itself, the URL of another version of the resource, or the URL of a work related to the resource (such as a table of contents). The field indicators distinguish between the types of URLs.
* The fixed fields required for a monographic electronic resource are: an 008 for books, an 006 for electronic characteristics, and an 007 for the physical features of the electronic resource. For remote access resources, only two positions are required in the 007, “c” for computer and “r” for remote.
* The mandatory variable fields in records for integrating electronic resources are: frequency, mode of access, system requirements, source of title proper (which should include the date on which the resource was viewed), and former titles (247), if applicable. The 516 field is not required.
* Supply the start/end dates of an integrating electronic resource only when the resource contains an explicit statement to that effect.
* Although the bibliographic level code “i” is authorized for integrating resources, it has not yet been implemented by OCLC. In the interim, the fixed fields for textual integrating electronic resources should be: record type “a” for textual and bibliographic level “m” for monographic in the 008 field, one 006 field for the resource’s computer file characteristics, a second 006 field for its continuing characteristics, and an 007 field for its computer file/electronic characteristics.
* Records for remote-access electronic resources can be updated in any area of description. AACR2 Chapter 12 gives rules for how to deal with changes in each part of the record.
Last, but not least, Woodcock discussed three useful software tools: OCLC’s Connexion, Sagebrush’s MARCit, and the University of Oregon’s MARCEdit. Connexion and MARCit can extract metadata from a Website to create a brief MARC record. Since choice of the Web page determines how full a MARC record is generated, it is important to choose this page wisely. It is likely the cataloger will need to add information to these generated records. MARCEdit, which is free, enables batch editing of large files, such as EBSCO e-journal records or e-book vendor records.
Michigan State University
Descriptive Cataloging of Sound Recordings presented by Daniel Paradis, Université de Montréal
This workshop dealt exclusively with descriptive cataloging as it pertains to sound recordings and was based on cataloging norms as presented in AACR2, Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs), Music Cataloging Decisions (MCDs), and MARC 21. It was one of several French-language offerings at the conference. The format for the presentation followed the areas as they are laid out in AACR2, with pertinent LCRIs and MCDs being mentioned in context. MARC examples were given throughout.
In the first part of the workshop, Paradis focused on the Title and Statement of Responsibility Area. He began with a discussion of the chief source of information for the work, giving examples of situations where identification of the chief source is guided by the rules. After that, he discussed the difference between generic and distinctive titles. The identification of the title proper determines other title information and subtitles, as well as placement of the GMD, and is a very complex process.
Next, Paradis talked about the Publication, Distribution, etc. Area. If there is a publisher but no place of publication, it is possible to consult the Internet; the country of publication can be given in brackets with a question mark if unsure. With certain international labels, it will be necessary to enter “[S.l.]”.
Paradis also gave guidelines for transcribing the myriad publication dates, copyright dates, and phonogram dates that can appear on sound recordings. The copyright date cannot be transcribed in place of the publication date, but it can be used to infer the publication date of a recording; in that case, the publication date would be bracketed. Paradis provided examples of situations where multiple phonogram dates appear and gave sample transcriptions for different cases. In the slides that he presented, Paradis did not use the phonogram date to infer the publication date.
A discussion of the Physical Description Area followed. The 2004 updates of AACR2 include some changes in this area by allowing for the use of modern terminology in the description. Problems are foreseen with describing traditional vinyl record albums. Paradis said that LC has opted not to apply this new option and that LC will also not apply the option of omitting the word “sound,” even though it is possible to do so because of the GMD.
Under the rubric “Special cases”, Paradis included a brief discussion of Super Audio CDs, which require the entry, “$b digital, SACD” in the Physical Description Area and a System Requirements Note (538). Enhanced CDs (those with CD-ROM elements included) also require a 538 note. A Summary Note (520) is used to describe the content of the multimedia element of the enhanced CD, and since the multimedia part is considered accompanying material, 006 and 007 fields are necessary. Also, Paradis mentioned that MP3s are cataloged as sound recordings and not as electronic resources. The rationale is that a computer is necessary for accessing electronic resources, but MP3s can be played on a variety of devices and are therefore not electronic resources.
Access issues rounded out the formal content of the workshop, including a discussion of main and added entries along with uniform titles. Rules for entries of composers, performers, and groups such as orchestras were discussed. When to create variant titles access and name-title access was also discussed. Examples of uniform titles were given.
Despite the vastness of the subject, the content was comprehensive and complete with relevant examples in a supplementary handout. Examples on the handout were tied to the presentation throughout the course of the workshop. Paradis took questions throughout his presentation, enabling participants to clarify situations that have arisen at their institutions. Although the questions limited somewhat the amount of content that was covered during the workshop, the accompanying documentation compensated.
Heather Lea Moulaison
Southwest Missouri State University
*Only selected workshop reports have been included. For complete conference coverage, see http://www.olacinc.org/conferences/2004.html. Thanks to Jan Mayo, East Carolina University, and Jain Fletcher, University of California, Los Angeles for this compilation of reports.
Tom Delsey appointed as AACR3 Editor
Tom Delsey, a Canadian consultant specializing in information modeling, has been appointed editor of the next edition of The Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR). The Committee of Principals for AACR made the appointment in preparation for a comprehensive revision of the rules. The new edition, with the working title of AACR3: Resource Description and Access, will be published in 2007.
Delsey, based in Ottawa, Canada, has extensive library and information modeling experience. His consulting projects have included the "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" (FRBR) and the "Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records" (FRANAR) for the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). Delsey also prepared "The Logical Structure of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules" for the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC).
Prior to becoming a consultant, Delsey was Director General, Corporate Policy and Communications, at the National Library of Canada. Delsey was the 2003 recipient of the Margaret Mann Citation awarded by the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) Cataloging and Classification Section (CCS) for outstanding professional achievement in cataloguing or classification.
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) is revised and maintained by the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/index.html) and governed by the Committee of Principals for AACR. AACR is co-published by the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association, and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (UK).
Chair, Committee of Principals, AACR
Best of CCQ vol 36 awarded to Brian E. C. Schottlaender
Brian E. C. Schottlaender, University Librarian at University of California-San Diego, has received the award for the best article published in volume 36 of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. His article, “Why Metadata? Why Me? Why Now?”, was published in CCQ 36(3/4). It also appears in Electronic Cataloging: AACR2 and Metadata for Serials and Monographs, edited by Sheila S. Intner, Sally C. Tseng, and Mary Lynette Larsgaard and published by Haworth Press.
The award panel (Sherry L. Vellucci, Alan R. Thomas, and Sandy Roe) stated: "The straightforward structure of “Why Metadata? Why Me? Why Now?” immediately grabs the reader; Schottlaender carries the content forward with energy and pace. He does a masterful job of defining the vocabulary of metadata and describing the important components of the metadata environment in a clear and articulate manner. His depth and breadth of understanding of the issues and challenges presented by the confluence of cataloging and metadata is impressive. He promotes a holistic approach to cataloging and metadata that is long overdue in the cataloging community and skillfully explains why catalogers should become actively involved in this joint venture by bringing their organizational knowledge and skills to the metadata table.