Volume 49, no. 2, 2011


Book Review

Abstracts and Abstracting: A Genre and Set of Skills for the Twenty-First Century, by Tibor Koltay.
Reviewed by Lisa Bodenheimer


Cataloging News, Robert Bothmann, News Editor


Original Articles

New Cataloger Preparedness: Interviews with New Professionals in Academic Libraries
Michael Dulock

ABSTRACT: This study presents the results of interviews with twenty-two new professional catalogers in their first professional positions in an academic library. Interview questions focus on library education experiences, comfort with the theory and practice of cataloging, and overall level of preparedness provided by the master of library science (MLS) or equivalent degree. Interview results place great importance on practica, internships, or other practical experience during library education. The availability of more and better cataloging classes was also emphasized. Many interview respondents were unenthusiastic in their descriptions of the level of preparedness provided by the MLS.

KEYWORDS: Cataloging education; catalogers; Master of Library and Information Science (MLS) programs; cataloger interviews; cataloger preparedness


Modified Hepburn Romanization System in Japanese Language Cataloging: Where to Look, What to Follow
Yoko Kudo

ABSTRACT: ALA-LC Romanization Table for Japanese instructs catalogers to consult multiple editions of Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary and the American National Standard system concerning the Modified Hepburn romanization system. These resources and editions, however, not only vary in scope, but also present some conflicting policies, which may be hindering the operation of romanization. This study addresses the issues of Japanese romanization guidelines by clarifying what the Modified Hepburn system is, and analyzing the discrepancies among the guidelines. Selected romanization data in OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) WorldCat records are also examined to see how this problem has affected the current practices.

KEYWORDS: Japanese romanization, Japanese transliteration, Modified Hepburn system, ALA-LC Romanization Tables, OCLC WorldCat


Is There a New Bibliography?
Joseph T. Tennis

ABSTRACT: Describes the position claiming that the contemporary technological, socio-political, and socio-economic environment gives us pause to consider the core theory and practices of bibliography, combining bibliography of the work (in library and information science), bibliography of the text (in textual studies and scholarly editing), and bibliography of the artifact (in book history and now digital forensics), and calls for collaborative multidisciplinary research at the intersection of these fields to ask, is there a new bibliography?

KEYWORDS: Metadata, Social cataloging, Types of materials, Classification, Cataloging


An Interview with Joseph Miller
Sara Rofofsky Marcus

Joseph Miller discusses his career as a librarian and editor of the Sears List. Topics include his education, work with the Sears List, as well as trends in cataloging, the future of cataloging, and the teaching of cataloging in library schools.

KEYWORDS: Sears List of Subject Headings, Joseph Miller, Minnie Earl Sears, technical services, cataloging


Cataloging News
Robert Bothmann, News Editor

Welcome to the news column. áIts purpose is to disseminate information on any aspect of cataloging and classification that may be of interest to the cataloging community.á 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.á Please send any pertinent materials, notes, minutes, or reports to: Robert Bothmann, Memorial Library, Minnesota State University, Mankato, ML 3097, PO Box 8419, Mankato, MN 56002-8419 (email: robert.bothmann@mnsu.edu, phone: 507-389-2010.á News columns will typically be available prior to publication in print from the CCQ website at http://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
  • Publication announcements
  • Description of grants
  • Description of projects


  • Announcements of changes in personnel
  • Announcements of honors, offices, etc.


Research and Opinion

Scherzo Music Discovery System at Indiana University

Scherzo Music Discovery System at Indiana University Indiana University is pleased to announce the public (very Beta) release of Scherzo, a music discovery system designed as a testbed of the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) conceptual model. The system may be accessed at http://vfrbr.info/search. A product of the IMLS-funded Variations/FRBR project, Scherzo is an early proof of concept for what a library catalog built according to FRBR principles might look like. The current release is most certainly not a finished product; rather it represents an attempt to share in-progress development work with interested individuals. It is (and will continue to be) far from perfect, and the Variations/FRBR project team hopes these very imperfections help to promote community discussion on the utility of the FRBR model and how feasible mechanisms to automatically FRBRize MARC bibliographic and authority records are likely to be. We welcome and intend to participate in public discussion on this system and the issues it raises. Specific feedback may be sent to vfrbr@dlib.indiana.edu.

Scherzo currently contains records representing approximately 80,000 sound recordings from the holdings of Indiana University's renowned William and Gayle Cook Music Library in the Jacobs School of Music. Work on Scherzo to date has focused most heavily on FRBR Work identification from MARC and basic results display in a FRBRized environment. While we have paid some attention to user interface design, it is not our project's primary concern. The search system currently resides on a test server. While we expect the service to be generally available, please excuse any temporary down time or unexpected restarts.

In the short term, we have a number of planned improvements to the system, including a keyword search, improved Work identification processes, representing more specific roles that Group 2 entities have to Group 1 entities (beyond created by, realized by, and produced by defined in the FRBR reports), and bulk download of the source data powering this system in XML. In the slightly longer term we hope to make the source data available as Linked Data as well.

For more information, you may see detailed specifications for our MARC to FRBR record transformation, http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/projectDoc/metadata/mappings/spring2010/vfrbrSpring2010mappings.shtml, or the project home page, http://vfrbr.info/.

Jenn Riley
Metadata Librarian
Digital Library Program
Indiana University - Bloomington


The End of the Abbreviation of "Dept." in Access Headings

The Library of Congress (LC) rule interpretation LCRI B.9 sets forth a policy decision to abbreviate the word "Department" in corporate body name headings, even though the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2) does not instruct catalogers to do this. The Library of Congress Policy and Standards Division (LC PSD) is entertaining comments now on its proposal to end this practice and only abbreviate the word if it is abbreviated by the body on the source. The plan calls for OCLC to change approximately 48,000 name authority records and for LC to change over 200,000 bibliographic records that it will then redistribute, beginning no earlier than March 2, 2011.


Multilingual Dictionary of Cataloguing Terms and Concepts

IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutes) recently released the first version of the Multilingual Dictionary of Cataloguing Terms and Concepts (http://www.ifla.org/publications/multilingual-dictionary-of-cataloguing-terms-and-concepts-muldicat). This resource translates and defines many common cataloging terms and concepts and will be used as the authoritative reference for translations of IFLA documents. It is currently in the form of a Word document and will be released later as a SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) file.


United States RDA Test and OCLC

The US RDA Test Coordinating Committee wishes to clarify the role of OCLC in the US RDA test, and to provide information and communication pathways to those who are not test participants.

OCLC is playing a critical role in the US RDA test. They have enabled the testers to create non-distributed institutional records for the common sets of test records and have worked closely with the US RDA Test Coordinating Committee and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) to develop interim procedures and policies to minimize the impact of this test on OCLC users (http://www.oclc.org/us/en/rda/policy.htm).

OCLC has tens of thousands of members around the world, some of whom may have implemented RDA immediately when it was released. Duplicate records are a concern for many OCLC members, and creating parallel AACR2 and RDA records for the same title would only exacerbate the problem of duplicate records and would be likely to be merged by OCLC's Duplicate Detection and Resolution (DDR) software. Therefore, with the exception of some serial and integrating resource records, OCLC's interim policy during the testing period is that neither test participants nor other OCLC members should convert OCLC master records from AACR2 to RDA or vice versa.

Likewise, in the authority file, OCLC and PCC policy is that no duplicate authority records will be created. See http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/admindoc1.doc for more information. Existing authority records (based on AACR2 or earlier rules) may be temporarily augmented with a 7XX for the corresponding RDA form of the authorized access point, and new RDA authority records may be created. After the implementation decision, authority records with 7XX field will be updated as needed.

Institutions may need to adjust local procedures to account for RDA bibliographic and authority records your staff may encounter during the testing period.

An online survey to provide information to the US RDA Test Coordinating Committee from informal testers and others is available at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Q5968DB.

RDA records created may be submitted to the Library of Congress. Contact Dave Reser (rdres@loc.gov).

Questions or comments about the US RDA test may be sent to the US RDA Test Coordinating Committee via Susan Morris at the Library of Congress (smor@lc.gov).

Questions or comments about the content of RDA may be emailed to LChelp4rda@loc.gov.

Questions about the RDA Toolkit may be directed to ALA Editions at http://access.rdatoolkit.org/.

Additional information about the US RDA test is available at the US RDA Test Coordinating Committee's website: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/.

A FAQ and further explanation of the test process is available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/admindoc9.doc.

Judy Kuhagen
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress


Call for Papers for World Library and Information Congress: 77th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, San Juan, Puerto Rico, August 13-18, 2011, "Libraries beyond libraries: Integration, Innovation and Information for all"

Classification and Indexing Section, Theme: "Has as subject": bridging domains, communities and systems

The IFLA Classification and Indexing Section is pleased to announce a call for papers for its session at the IFLA 2011 conference to be held in Puerto Rico. The year 2010 has seen many innovations of interest to the Section and of relevance to the theme of the conference, including the publication of Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) [1], further development of the FRBR Review Group's Namespaces project to cover the FR family of models [2], and the activities of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group [3]. The linked data approach of the Semantic Web seems to hold much promise for improving integration of subject heading and classification schemes in a multilingual networked environment, and extending access to subject-based information supplied by many diverse sources to all kinds of user. Can these technologies really connect the multitude of subject indexing ecosystems evolved by the archive, library, museum, and publishing communities across the world? How can the simple property "has as subject" model this complexity and provide effective linked data?

The Section invites papers which address these questions. The Section is particularly interested in papers which describe practical, real-life development or implementations of linked data technologies in subject-based information retrieval, set in a broader context useful for others. The Section is also interested in theoretical papers which are relevant to practical implementers. Topics covered might include conversion of legacy metadata to linked subject data, mapping multiple subject vocabularies in the linked data environment, use of linked subject data in information services, and others.

Librarians, academics and other information professionals around the world are invited to submit paper proposals for the conference, focusing on:

  • Subject indexing and the Semantic Web
  • Linked subject data
  • Subject retrieval in multilingual, multicultural environments


If you are interested in contributing, please send:

  • An extended abstract of 500-1000 words, including a title, in English. The abstract should include links to work-in-progress and citations to related work, and other information relevant to the submission.
  • An outline of the presentation.
  • Brief biographical information of the author(s)/presenter(s) with current employment information.
  • Your mailing address.

All this by February 11, 2011 to: Maja Žumer, email Maja.Zumer@ff.uni-lj.si

The submissions will be reviewed by a selection committee of the Classification and Indexing Section Standing Committee. The selection will be based on the abstracts and rated on how well they fit the program theme. Authors will be contacted by April 1, 2011.

For successful applicants the deadline for submission of full papers is June 3, 2011 to allow time for review of papers and all other organization needs. The papers must be original submissions, not published elsewhere, and should be no longer than 15 pages, double-spaced. Full papers and presentations should be in one of the official IFLA languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Russian, or Spanish). Presentations at the conference will be limited to approx. 20 minutes and will be a summary of the original paper and may use PowerPoint. The original paper will be published online as part of the conference proceedings.

Please note that no financial support can be provided. The expenses of attending the meeting in Puerto Rico will be the responsibility of the author(s) / presenter(s) of accepted papers.

More Information

You can find more information on the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section on the IFLA website (http://www.ifla.org/en/classification-and-indexing). For additional information on this call for papers contact Maja Žumer (maja.zumer@ff.unil-lj.si) or Jo-Anne Bélair (Jo-Anne.Belair@bibl.ulaval.ca).

[1] Functional requirements for subject authority data (FRSAD) final report. 2010. Available at:

[2] IFLA. FRBR Review Group. Report of activities 2009-2010. Available at:

[3] W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group. Available at:



"Shaping Tomorrow's Metadata with RDA" RDA Pre-Conference Session at the 2010 Canadian Library Association Annual Conference

The Technical Service Interest Group (TSIG) of the Canadian Library Association (CLA) continued its promotion of RDA: Resource Description and Access (RDA) through various presentations at the CLA 2010 Annual Conference. A full day pre-conference session dedicated to RDA was sponsored by TSIG. This is the second such session offered because the first pre-conference session, held at the 2009 CLA Annual Conference in Montreal, was so successful. The title of 2010 RDA pre-conference session, "Shaping Tomorrow's Metadata with RDA," was presented on June 2, 2010 at the Shaw Conference Centre in Edmonton, Alberta. This pre-conference focused on the new places RDA is taking us and how RDA positions us for the next generation of resource description and resource discovery. The keynote speakers were Jennifer Bowen, Assistant Dean for Information Management Services at the University of Rochester, River Campus Libraries and Tom Delsey a library consultant based in Ottawa who is well known for his work as editor of RDA from 2005-2009. There was also a demonstration of the RDA Toolkit.


The following is a summary of the presentations at the pre-conference.

Moving Cataloguing into the 21st Century

by Tom Delsey


Tom Delsey as the opening keynote speaker for the pre-conference introduced the development of a new cataloguing standard for the digital world that is flexible, adaptable, and compatible with emerging technology. It is also interoperable with metadata standards from other communities. He also discussed the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) models, the development of RDA element set, the compatibility of RDA to metadata standards and RDA the online tool.


IFLA Conceptual Models and RDA

by Pat Riva


Pat Riva explored what you need to know about FRBR and FRAD when reading RDA, followed by an introduction to Functional Requirements Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) and an update on future developments in the FRBR family of conceptual models. The main topics covered in this presentation were: what are FRBR and FRAD; FRBR and FRAD in RDA; user and user tasks; entities/attributes; relationships; introduction to FRSAD and FRBR Review Group projects.


Demystifying RDA

by Chris Oliver


Chris Oliver delineated the similarities and difference between the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2) and RDA: Resource Description and Access (RDA).


Implementation in Canada

by Laura May


Laura May talked about implementation, documentation, and training at Library and Archives Canada. This included a discussion of American Library Association (ALA) publishing plans, tools and documents of interest, and implementation plans at Library and Archives Canada.


MARC21 Changes to Accommodate RDAby Trina Grover


The new MARC tags, subfields and codes for bibliographic and authority data, and a checklist for local integrated systems was covered in this presentation.


The eXtensible Catalog and its Metadata Services Toolkit: Preparing Library Metadata for New Environments and Standards

by Jennifer Bowen


In this closing keynote session, Jennifer Bowen described the eXtensible catalog (XC) project, the library metadata issues that XC can address, and gave an overview of the eXtensible catalog software, metadata services toolkit, and the user interface. This presentation concluded with a discussion of the status of development on the XC project.


Demonstration of the RDA Toolkit

by Chris Oliver

The preconference closed with a demonstration of the RDA online toolkit by Chris Oliver.

Marcia Salmon
Cataloguing Librarian
Scott Library, York University
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


OLAC 2010 Conference Reports

Reports from the 2010 OLAC Conference, October 14-17, Macon, Georgia
Jan Mayo, East Carolina University
Column Editor,OLAC Newsletter


NACO-AV Funnel Training (Pre-Conference)

Presented by David Prochazka, University of Akron
Reported by Christina Hennessey, Loyola Marymount University

The NACO-AV (Name Authority Cooperative-Audio-Visual) funnel training pre-conference was a day-long training session for those catalogers who will be contributing AV-related name authority records to the NACO-AV funnel, a project of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC). Library of Congress (LC) does not create name authority records for AV work, so the job has fallen to PCC/OCLC catalogers and their institutions. This training is not offered very often, and is usually a five-day class. David did an excellent job of condensing five days of material into a one-day course relevant to AV catalogers. All twelve attendees received a large binder with 500 pages of material. Many attendees brought laptops to the class as well, which was useful when looking at the many online resources we consulted during the course, such as AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition), LCRIs (Library of Congress Rule Interpretations), MARC 21 Format for Authority Aata, and DCM:Z1 (Descriptive Cataloging Manual:Z1 Name and Series Authority Records). All can be found on the NACO page at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/.

The session focused on name authority records (NARs) for personal and corporate names. We skipped the regular NACO training on geographic names, since they seldom come up in AV name authority work, and uniform titles. We focused on AACR2, rather than RDA (RDA: Resource Description and Access). If and when RDA is implemented, we will have opportunities for future training on it then.

General guidelines on when to create a new NAR were discussed. Goals of NACO record creation are high-value, low effort. The LC/NACO authority file is a dynamic file that lives at LC, changing every 24 hours. Name authorities should be unique, but not exhaustive. The records should not be a biography or a history, but brief and pertinent. Focus on the work in hand and do not cruise the database for errors to fix!

To keep authority records consistent, we spent a lot of training time on how names are chosen and normalized (to avoid duplicates), and on the proper format for the 670s that support the research we have done. There is also a lot of trickiness with corporate body name authorities. They are handled differently if they are government or non-government, and whether they are a subordinate part of another corporation or not.

The class worked on exercises throughout the day to test our knowledge of what we had learned so far. All contributors trained in this class will be assigned a mentor that will review our ongoing name authority work until we achieve 95% success. Approximately forty librarians internationally contribute to this project, and are listed in the NACO reports as the "OLAC" funnel. There are no quotas for the group or for particular librarians or institutions. The NACO-AV funnel is also supported by a discussion list.



"Chicken Soup for the Soul? RDA for the AV Cataloger"

Opening Session Address by Robert Ellett, San José State University
Reported by Sandy Roe, Illinois State University

Robert Ellett, lecturer at the School of Library & Information Science at San José State University, began with stories of his previous experiences at OLAC conferences and gave special thanks to this year's local conference planner before launching into the topic he was asked to address, RDA: Resource Description and Access (RDA). His presentation title, "Chicken Soup for the Soul? RDA for the AV Cataloger," recalled for the audience the now twenty year old series of inspirational stories originally created by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen. We are just now beginning to hear inspirational stories about RDA.

Ellett went on to explain important aspects of RDA, and to compare and contrast it with AACR2. RDA is the content of the guidelines, while the RDA toolkit is the current electronic product that is available from ALA publishing. RDA is arranged around FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) attributes: manifestations and items, works and expressions; persons, families, and corporate bodies; and concepts, objects, events, and places and the recording of relationships, while AACR2 is organized by format. There are three types of description from which the cataloger must select: comprehensive, analytical, and hierarchical. Ellett discussed the preferred source of information for a variety of manifestations and items. He shared a quote from the Joint Steering Committee to remind the audience that RDA is based on many AACR2 principles.

After laying out the guidelines for devised titles and the RDA core and "core if" elements, Ellett focused more specifically on using RDA to catalog media and three-dimensional objects. He provided screenshots of relevant portions of the RDA Toolkit and discussed the handout, "Content, Media, Carrier: Controlled Vocabularies from RDA." The handout provided lists of values for the new MARC 21 fields 336, 337, and 338 - the fields that have replaced the general material designation (GMD). After giving the audience a chance to practice applying these new values, he provided examples for the recording of extent and the three types of relationship designators (name-to-resource, resource-to-resource, and name-to-name). Finally, he encouraged us to watch for the addition of non-print examples at the Library of Congress Documentation for the RDA Test: Examples for RDA - Compared to AACR2 (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdaexamples.html). Ellett concluded that our use of RDA will result in more granular metadata which will support better differentiation of resources.


Rules Were Made for Patrons, Not Patrons for the Rules

Closing Session Address by J. McRee (Mac) Elrod, Special Libraries Cataloguing
Reported by Jan Mayo, East Carolina University

Closing session speaker, J. McRee (Mac) Elrod, founder of Special Collections Cataloguing, a contract cataloging firm, began his presentation with a brief but colorful biography in the support of equality for all as an illustration of his opinionated nature. Mac has a long history of rabble rousing and that those in attendance were "the rabble he wishe[d] to rouse" today.

He sees librarians as central to our civilization and catalogers, especially AV catalogers, as the most vital part, because cataloging of non-book materials is becoming more critical than ever. However, we need to bear in mind that rules were made for the patrons, not patrons for the rules. We must both make materials available and make our records similar enough so that we can share them and administrators are willing to pay for them. There are currently conflicts between the rules advocated by different agencies, and catalogers have abandoned their central role of building catalogs to online catalog programmers, who do not have the same perspective.

Mac discussed the addition of fields 336-338 to perform the function the GMD does now, even though the GMD works fairly well. Some of his clients have asked to have those fields converted to display like the GMD because this is what the patrons want. What patrons want will eventually shape the rules.

According to Mac, reports of the death of the MARC format are greatly exaggerated. There is nothing wrong with MARC having been created around the catalog card format, and he feels that abandoning ISBD (International Standard Bibliographic Description) element ordering is a bad idea. Mac claims we are not using MARC and AACR2 as fully as we could be and some of the limitations catalogers complain are inherent in them can actually be worked out through the current versions of MARC and AACR2.

He made suggestions for several areas that could do with some work, such as the display order of 5XX notes, and listed several ways in which Special Libraries Cataloguing bends the rules to accommodate patrons' needs. Consistency in transcription is vital to providing good access.

He cautioned against deleting information from a record, urging that mapping be used to control the display instead. We need to make our online catalogs work for us, not the other way around.

The substance of Mac's presentation and the handout he distributed can be found at http://www.slc.bc.ca/mac/rules.htm and http://www.slc.bc.ca/mac/handout.htm.



Basic Videorecordings Cataloging

Presented by Peter Lisius, Kent State University
Reported by Susannah Benedetti, University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Peter Lisius, Music and Media Cataloger at Kent State University, presented on Basic Videorecordings and noted that the session would primarily focus on DVDs. He identified major tools and resources, including chapters 7 and 9 of AACR2 (and their respective LCRIs), the Subject Heading Manual (with a focus on H1913 (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/h1913.pdf), "Guide to Cataloging DVD and Blu-ray Discs" (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/DVD_guide_final.pdf), "LCSH Moving Image Genre-Form Headings" (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/GenreFormHeadingsList.pdf), "Genre-Form Headings at LC" (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/genreformgeneral.html), and "Best Practices for Cataloging Streaming Media" (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/streamingmedia.pdf). He noted the online reference sources IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/) and All Movie Guide (http://www.allmovie.com/), as well as individual distributor sites, especially for documentaries. Print sources of note include Organizing Audiovisual and Electronic Resources for Access: A Cataloging Guide by Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (2nd ed., 2006, 9781591580515) and Cataloging of Audiovisual Materials and Other Special Materials: A Manual Based on AACR2 and MARC 21 by Nancy Olson; Robert L. Bothmann; Jessica J. Schomberg (5th ed., 2008, 9781591586357).

Peter took a systematic approach, going MARC field by MARC field and highlighting special considerations for DVDs and videos in each.

After going through the fixed fields and the 007 field, which describes the physical characteristics of A/V material (including accompanying material), Peter spent some time on the 041 Language Code and went over its relationship with the 546 Language Note for DVDs. It is common for foreign film DVDs to include optional language tracks that provide dubbing in English and other languages, and for English language films to include optional language tracks as well.

For the Chief Source of Information, Peter cited AACR2 7.0B1. The chief source is "the item itself (e.g., the title frames)" and stressed that these could be either the opening or closing title credits. The next preferred source is "its container (and container label) if the container is an integral part of the piece." This actually refers to the DVD disc surface or label, and not to the case or jewel case, which is characterized a container that is "not an integral part of the piece."

For videos the title is almost always given as the main entry, due to the diffuse nature of responsibility for films. For the 245 Peter covered the General Material Designation (subfield h) and noted that it will likely be going away in RDA. He quoted 7.1F1 regarding the statement of responsibility and went over who is fortunate enough to be transcribed in subfield c ("those persons or bodies credited in the chief source of information with a major role in creating a film (e.g., as producer, director, animator)"). Key technical crew members are listed in the 508 Creation/Production Credits note (typically the director of photography, editor, musical score composer, and such) and performers are listed in the 511 Participant/Performer note. Peter acknowledged that it is a case of cataloger's judgment in deciding who should be entered in which (or in any) of these two fields.

Peter spent some time on the tricky issue of when the "Widescreen" designation goes in the 250 Edition field and when it goes in the 538 System Details note. Jay Weitz also covered this in the Advanced Videorecordings session and the consensus, although imperfect, is that if you are aware that there is at least one other edition "out there," then put "Widescreen" in the 250.

For films the distributor typically goes in the 260 Publication, Distribution, Etc. field. Publication dates are another tricky area, and Peter went over the procedure of entering the DVD release date with DtSt "s" (Single date) if the DVD release includes significant new content (interviews, documentaries about the making of the film, etc.).

The prescribed order of 5xx notes is: 538, 546, 508, 511, 518, 520, 505, 500.

Peter covered relevant aspects of the 518 note (for noting the original release date of a film), the 520 Summary note (it should be objective and devoid of value judgments), a 500 note for "special features," and others.

For 6xx subject and genre headings he described how subject headings typically end with "Drama" (such as "Boxing-Drama") and genre headings typically end with "films" (such as "Boxing films").

Describing AACR2 21.29D and its relatively convoluted LCRI, Peter suggested following the simple caveat of tracing anyone in the 245 subfield c, the 260 subfield c, and the 511 as Personal name added entries.

The main considerations for videos on when to input a new record are: issuance of a new format (such Blu-ray vs. DVD), significant difference in running time, different publishers/distributors, and specific technical differences (such as color vs. black & white, video systems, regions).

We spent a few minutes on RDA, specifically on Describing carriers, Identifying works and expressions, Recording content type, and Describing content. He referred to the handout from the conference opening keynote session.

Peter had a series of examples highlighting many of the issues described above and took several questions. The session was organized and informative and helpful to all.

Peter's presentation is available at http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/conference/2010/files/Basic_Videorecordings_Presentation_OLAC_2010.pdf.


Cataloging New Digital Formats

Presented by Jay Weitz, OCLC
Reported by Kris Jacobi, Eastern Connecticut State University

Jay Weitz began the presentation by indicating that he had changed the title from New Video Formats to "Cataloging New Digital Formats." But no matter, as the time flew by quickly as all present were spellbound by Jay's charisma, knowledge, and humor.

Waxing poetic and sentimental about the 2008 OLAC Conference in Cleveland, he began the workshop with a back to the future introduction to the different cataloging organizations that we all should know about: OLAC, MOUG (Music OCLC Users Group) and CAPC (OLAC's own Cataloging Policy Committee). Trying to be expeditious and practical, he moved on to discuss basic cataloging knowledge and the history of cataloging (AACR2 to MARC 21) and formats (sound recordings, video recordings, and electronic resources).

From there, he did his best to "put on a show" à la Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland. Starting with the history and characteristics of the digital video disc format, and the impossibility of any DVD having a publication date pre-March 1997 in the United States, he launched into the "basics" of DVD cataloging. Starting with the 007 field and each of its indicators and codes, Jay reiterated how important it was for OCLC members to code the 007 field correctly when cataloging.

Covering the basics of the delimiter h in the 245 field "[videorecording]," and describing the extent of the item as 1 videodisc (xx mins.) in the delimiter a of the 300 field, an in-depth explanation of the 538 field, System Details Note, was given. Since the 538 field is the most important of the 5XX fields for DVD cataloging, Jay recommends that it be the first note in a bibliographical record. And, each cataloger should be consistent with the description in their cataloging; being clear and concise.

The second element of the 538 field is the color broadcast system. These are NTSC, PAL, SECAM, and ATSC. The third element of the 538 field is region. Since the DVD format is produced all over the globe, this causes much consternation because not all DVD players can accept and play in all regions, with the exception of "0" (zero). All librarians must be aware of non-North American DVD acquisitions for this reason.

Jay next described the many aspect ratios (the fourth element of the 538 field) that occur on DVDs now. Catalogers must be able to use their judgment regarding identifying the multiplicity of possibilities, and decide if the description of the aspect ratio in-hand is better indicated in combination with the 538 note, or is distinct enough to separate out and describe in the 250 field as an edition statement, or is it best suited as a separate 500 note, possibly a quoted note.

The fifth element to describe is sound characteristics, where again, catalogers can use their judgment and individual procedure and policy practices in the description: in the 538 field; if more complicated than simple then perhaps in a separate 500 note; or in combination with the language note, 546 field, if in more than one language.

The presentation got even more interesting when Jay spoke of dates, and types of dates. In a world where catalogers deal with dates there are different sources to "find" dates which is compounded by different bibliographical events. For example, the copyright of the cover design or accompanying material is meaningless in regard to dates in the cataloger's sense. Basically, get your dates from the chief source of information, remembering that no made-in-America DVD can have a date earlier than 1997. Catalogers can account for other important dates in the notes field. Catalogers should consider substantial additional material as a new edition. If it is simply a reissue with the trailer tacked on as an extra, this is not substantial enough to make a new bibliographical record. But if the reissue has added interviews, and how this film was made footage, that is substantial enough to warrant a new bibliographical record.

Speaking of the tower of Babel, Jay launched into DVD language possibilities and another quagmire of data for the cataloger to unravel, note, and code. There is a document to aid catalogers, "OLAC CAPC Video Language Coding Best Practices Task Force Draft Recommendations" (2007) available at http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/langcodedraft1.pdf. This document has detailed information with examples; includes descriptions of captions, intertitles, and subtitles; and includes links to other DVD-related Web pages of interest.

To a cataloger's advantage, the publisher will sometimes print a grid on the DVD box (although the container is considered a secondary source of information) which includes the languages, aspect ratio, subtitle languages, sound characteristics, captioning, region, running time, and color or black & white. Unfortunately, this information cannot be trusted!

The session ended here as we ran out of time, but Jay insisted that attendees had the necessary informational foundation to forge ahead with the handout for the other new digital formats not covered.

Throughout this workshop and most others, Jay continues to propound that catalogers should not agonize and always use their educated and experienced "cataloger's judgment." Much of the presentation was poignantly punctuated by the applauding and cheering of the high school students also in the Macon Convention Center outside the presentation room. And, we too say, Bravo! and thank you, Jay.

Jay's presentation is available at http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/conference/2010/workshops.html. Click on the link after the session description.


Advanced Videorecordings Cataloging

Presented by Jay Weitz, OCLC
Reported by Karen Griggs, Brigham Young University

Jay Weitz covered the material on the first part of his Advanced Videorecordings Cataloging handout in his Cataloging New Digital Formats workshop held on the previous day. After a group discussion, Jay jumped to the section on statements of responsibility.

The 245 field is where persons with overall responsibility are listed; usually writers, animators, directors, producers, and/or production companies. Jay emphasized his maxim about not agonizing over making exceptions to the general rule about inclusion in the 245 $c field, especially when the responsibility is important in relation to the content of the work. The 508 field is an extension of the 245 $c where people responsible for one segment or aspect of the work are listed. All performers and narrators should be listed in the 511 field. Although there is a rule (AACR2 21.29D LCRI) about which added entries should be made for persons or corporate bodies who have contributed to the creation of the items were mentioned, Jay does not agree and traces both producers and production companies. Jay also discussed listing of performing groups versus individuals and grouping statements of responsibility into blocks. Cataloger's judgment should be used in arranging names in the way that makes the most sense.

Another major area of discussion was the sometimes perplexing subject of numbers and where to place them in a DVD bibliographic record. These include the publisher number in the 028 field with the first indicator of 4 for the videorecording number; the source of acquisition number (037) for distributor's stock numbers; the ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 in the 020 field; and the 024 field which might include a Universal Product Code (UPC), an International Article Number (EAN), a Global Trade Item Number (GTINČ14) or a Supplemental Code for additional codes that follow the standard number.

The next topic, genre/form headings, is a work in progress. Jay stated that the way we use them is in flux. LC is creating a hierarchy for them and we need to watch the LC Web site for developments. Form headings indicate works with a particular format and/or purpose while genre headings identify categories of works. In June 2010 LC announced the LC Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT) which are formally separate from LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings) (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/genreformthesaurus.html). The Moving Image Genre/Form Headings, SHM H 1913 (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/h1913.pdf) gives rules on assigning genre/form headings for both fiction and nonfiction works and suggests assigning as many genre/form headings as necessary to bring out important forms and genres to which the work belongs. Genre/form headings should also be assigned for people with disabilities, when appropriate.

We then discussed Series and Dependent Titles which is a confusing topic. Catalogers define series in the context of MARC fields 490/830. However, for moving image materials, the understanding of series gets mixed up, particularly when we consider television series versus bibliographic series. In the vernacular sense, a series is defined as "a daily or weekly program with the same cast and format and a continuing story, as a soap opera, situation comedy, or drama," or "a number of related programs having the same theme, cast or format." Series in the AACR2 sense is "a group of separate items related to one another by the fact that each item bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole."

Jay's presentation is available at http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/conference/2010/workshops.html. Click on the link after the session description.


Streaming Video Cataloging

Presented by Marielle Veve, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Reported by Deborah Ryszka, University of Delaware

Marielle Veve, cataloging and metadata librarian/adjunct assistant professor at the School of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, presented an in-depth session on how to catalog streaming video or remote access multimedia. Veve began her presentation with a definition and examples of streaming video or media. She described streaming video as moving images that are sent over a network and that can be viewed immediately. Streaming video has no physical carrier and can only be viewed online. Once playback of the streaming video is complete, the files downloaded to view the streaming content are gone.

According to Veve, streaming video comes in a variety of formats, including videos with sound, videos without sound, animated slides, static slides or slideshows, and screen captures. To accompany her explanations of these formats, Veve used visual examples to illustrate all of the formats she described. She noted that streaming video can come in a variety of file types, such as .asf, .asx, .avi, .flv, .mp4, .mpg, mpeg, .mov, .qt, rm, .swf, and wmv.

There are distinct differences between streaming media and non-streaming media. The most recognizable characteristic of non-streaming media is the way in which it is housed. Media housed in and distributed through physical carriers, i.e., videocassettes, DVDs, DVD-ROMs, CDs, CD-ROMs, etc., are considered non-streaming media. Digital files downloaded in their entirety from the Internet and stored on a local device or drive are also non-streaming media. Non-streaming media can be downloaded, manipulated, edited, or burned, but there must be sufficient device or drive capacity for these tasks. Playback of non-streaming media is based on the downloadable file on the local drive or device and is not in "real time."

The core of Veve's presentation focused on showing attendees how to catalog streaming video using AACR2 Chapter 7 (Motion Pictures and Videorecordings) and Chapter 9 (Electronic Resources). Streaming video files by their nature are videorecordings and remotely accessed electronic resources, and catalogers should use both chapters in AACR2 as the basis for their description of these items.

For determining the chief source of information for streaming media, Veve advised following rules 7.0B1 and 9.0B1 in AACR2. These rules instruct catalogers to use the item or resource itself as a chief source of information. In order of preference, Veve proposed the following places to consult for chief source of information for streaming media: the title screen as viewed during playback, the title frames or main menu before playback, the title on the streaming video's home page, accompanying material issued by the publisher of the streaming video, or other published descriptions of the streaming video not issued by the publisher of the streaming video.

Via a streaming media clip, Veve showed those in her breakout session how to select the appropriate cataloging workform in OCLC for cataloging these items. Treat streaming media as a videorecording and select the visual materials workform in OCLC, if cataloging these types of materials in OCLC's database.

In the fixed field portion of a bibliographic record in OCLC, code Type as "g" for projected media. Use value "m" for monograph or "i" for integrating resource, as appropriate, in the BLvl portion of the fixed field. Tag Form as "o" for online resource, TMat as "v" for videorecording, and Tech as "l" for live. Enter the total running time of the streaming video in the Time portion of the fixed field. Right justify the numbers and round seconds to the next highest number.

Fields 006 and 007 should be present in streaming media bibliographic records. A 006 field should be added and coded to reflect the electronic resource aspect of the streaming media or video file. Two 007 fields are needed to describe fully the different video and electronic resource characteristics of the file. One 007 is coded to describe the videorecording features of the file while the second is added to record the electronic resource attributes of the item.

Veve detailed how to transcribe title and statement of responsibility information for streaming videos and used actual streaming examples to demonstrate her points. Title information is entered in the 245 field with a $h [electronic resource] after the main portion of the title; other and parallel title information, if present, is placed in the $b part of the 245 field. Statement of responsibility data is recorded in the $c portion of the 245 field. Varying forms of title are coded in 246 fields.

AACR2 rule 9.4B2, used to determine the publishing aspect of a streaming video, instructs catalogers to treat all remotely accessed electronic resources as published. The first place to consult for 260 data, Veve proposed, is the information found during the playback of a video. Next in line, according to Veve, are the following areas: before or after playback of the video, the video's homepage, accompanying published material issued by the video's publisher, and lastly, other published descriptions not issued by the publisher.

For recording information in the 300 field, Veve referred attendees to OLAC's "Best Practices for Streaming Media" and urged them to follow AACR2 rule 9.5B3 and OLAC's interpretation of it. There are instances when including a 300 field in a bibliographic record is not advisable or appropriate and Veve gave direction for those specific situations. If the physical description (300 field) is omitted, assign a general note (500 field) or a contents note (505 field) to record the physical attributes of the streaming video file.

When constructing 500 notes for streaming media records, Veve encouraged catalogers to follow the guidelines in chapters 7 and 9 of AACR2. She provided specific instances of how notes should be coded and worded. Notes can be included in the bibliographic record to capture the following information: system requirements, mode of access, language, nature or artistic form and medium of performance, source of title proper, cast, credits, edition and history, accompanying material, other formats, summary, and contents.

Lastly, Veve discussed the need for an 856 field, which provides electronic access or a direct link to the resource, in the bibliographic record for a streaming media file. Additionally, this field can provide access to a related resource, if desired. If a direct link to the resource is included, the second indicator in the 856 field is coded "0." When a link to a related resource is provided in the 856 field, catalogers should assign a value of "2" to the second indicator.

Veve accompanied her presentation with a handout entitled, "The Streaming Guide to Cataloging Remote Access Multimedia : A How-To-Virtual Manual for Catalogers." This handout provided a link to Veve's Web site, where additional material on cataloging streaming media is available. To access Veve's online cataloging documentation, see http://www.lib.utk.edu/~veve/.



Presented by Pam Newberg, Chadron State College
Reported by Marcy A. Strong, University of Rochester River Campus Libraries

The realia workshop was presented by Pam Newberg, head of Technical Services at Chadron State College in Chadron, Nebraska, who graciously stepped in at the last minute to teach this workshop when the original instructor was unable to attend.

The chief source of information is the piece itself; for example, if the item being cataloged is a model, then the chief source is the model or a base to which it may be permanently attached. Realia is usually cataloged using the visual materials workform in OCLC Connexion. The MARC fixed fields include "r" in the Type field, which indicates a three-dimensional artifact or naturally occurring object; the running time is left blank; the type of visual material includes a lengthy list with selections such as kit, art reproduction, game, and realia; and the technique is "z" for other.

Objects cataloged as realia should include a general material designation (GMD) in the title statement. A list of approved GMDs can be found in AACR2 1.1C1 and include options such as art reproduction, flash card, kit, model, and several others that could be useful for realia. If using RDA to catalog realia, the GMD will be replaced by the three new MARC fields 336 (Content type), 337 (Media type), and 338 (Carrier type). Tactile three-dimensional form may be a common content type and the carrier type comes from the prescribed list (RDA and will likely be object. Another change that RDA brings is the lack of subfield e in the 300 field. Instead, realia cataloged in RDA may have multiple 300 fields to indicate the various materials included (such as a kit).

Cataloger's judgment plays a significant role in cataloging realia and there can be many different ways to catalog an object. Notes are quite common and are often used to more fully describe the object at hand.


Cataloging Electronic Resources

Presented by Bobby Bothmann, Minnesota State University, Mankato
Reported by Thuy-Anh Dang, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Mr. Bothmann gave a clear, detailed, and practical presentation on the AACR2 cataloging of electronic resources. He mentioned RDA as a presence on the horizon, but decided to confine his talk to current rules. He invited and fielded questions throughout, and audience participation was high. The workshop was most useful for catalogers unfamiliar with electronic resources as well as for catalogers wishing a refresher course. Mr. Bothmann spent considerable time helping his audience understand, in cataloging terms, the nature of an electronic resource. In essence, an electronic resource is material (data and/or computer programs) that is encoded for manipulation by a computerized device, and thus a user requires a computer to get access to the material. All electronic resources are always cataloged with the GMD [electronic resource], whether the resource is an e-book, electronic serial, Playaway, digital map, streaming audio or streaming video file, etc. Mr. Bothmann acknowledged that this choice of GMD is still a source of much debate, and emphasized that it is the need for computer manipulation that has driven the OLAC Cataloging Policy Committee's choice of GMD.

Besides its electronic or digital nature, an electronic resource can have several other aspects. It can be monographic or serial or integrating in nature, and it can be textual or audiovisual or cartographic or musical, etc. The primary nature of the contents will dictate the cataloger's choice of workform and the application of AACR2 chapters in addition to chapter 9. An electronic resource can also be direct access (where a physical carrier such as a computer disk or cartridge can be described), or remote access (where access is through a computer network, and no physical carrier is available)

Mr. Bothmann then went through the MARC cataloging of an electronic resource in detail, pointing out important or new coding. The leader/06 should generally not be coded m (Computer file), but instead should be coded for the primary nature of the content (such as language material or cartographic or aural, etc.). The leader/06 is coded m (Computer file) only when a cataloger is uncertain of the primary nature of the content, or when the content is of mixed nature.

The fixed field element Form of item has some new codes, o for online, remote access electronic resource; q for direct access electronic resource; and s is used as a generic code for electronic resources or when the cataloger is uncertain.

Catalogers of electronic resources must always give a source of title note, and the 588 field is newly available for this purpose.

An audience member noted that he has seen many records that use the 533 field to describe the resource's system requirements, in effect treating the resource as a reproduction. Mr. Bothmann strongly advised against such a practice. He also advised against making overly obvious 530 notes, such as "Also available in print." He prefers using linking entry notes 76X-78X instead. He also pointed out a common misuse of coding in the subject access fields: catalogers should not misuse topical or free-floating form subdivisions such as $x Electronic information resources or $v Databases. He prefers the use of appropriate genre/form terms in 655 fields, such as 655 Electronic information resources.

Mr. Bothmann showed sample bibliographic records of a Web site, an e-book, and a digital map. He concluded the workshop with an open-ended discussion on when one would need separate records, for example, in the case of an e-book available in PDF, in HTML, and on a Kindle.

Bobby's presentation is available at http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/conference/2010/files/Cataloging%20Electronic%20Resources-OLAC-2010.pdf.


Cataloging Electronic Books

Presented by Bobby Bothmann, Minnesota State University, Mankato
Reported by Karen Sigler, Texas State University-San Marcos

This presentation began with Bobby Bothmann reviewing some basic definitions of terms from the AACR2 glossary that relate to an understanding of e-books. The primary definitions were electronic resource (materials encoded for manipulation by a computer device), direct access (use of electronic resource via carriers designed to be inserted into a computerized device or its auxiliary equipment), and remote access (use of electronic resource via computer networks). He also covered the definition and use of specific MARC 21 codes: o (online), g (direct electronic) and s (electronic).

Is it direct or remote? Bothmann discussed the confusion in this area and clarified differences to make coding decisions easier. For example, a pdf through a server connection is online (code o). When you view an e-book with a Kindle you have a direct electronic (code g).

What is an e-book? It is both monographic and electronic and is a text and image based publication in digital form produced on, published by and readable on computers or other digital devices (Wikipedia definition).

The definitions were then followed by a discussion on specific areas in an e-book record:

Area 1: MARC control fields

006 (must include m for computer file), 007 (coding reflects if it is remote or direct access) and 008 (code as if it were not an electronic resource; only difference is Form). Examples of the specifics on coding can be found at the link to the session.

Area 2: Title and Statement of responsibility (field 245)

Chief source is the resource itself. You must give a note citing the source of the title. New MARC tag for this purpose is 588. For now the GMD is [electronic resource].

Area 3: Edition (field 250)

Be liberal in your interpretation. The word "edition" or equivalent may not be present. Ignore minor changes. In provider neutral records do not supply edition (i.e., Springer revised ed.). Mathematical or type of material data are no longer used for electronic resources. Do not use the 256 field, but if you find them in older records, do not delete them.

Area 4: Publication, Distribution (field 260)

Consider remote access resources to be published. Follow AACR2 rules in Chapters 1 and 2. There is no need to supply information you find on the resource in [brackets].

Area 5: Physical Description (field 300)

All direct access resources must have a physical description. Currently subfield $a is 1 online resource, but there are no guidelines for what to use for e-book. Supply "digital" and file type as appropriate in illustrative matter in $b. The order is not specified.

Example: 300 ## $a 1 online resource : $b ill., map, digital, pdf, html

Area 6: Series (fields 490/830)

Nothing unusual or different about this area for electronic resources, but do not treat a provider's platform as a series.

Area 7: Notes

Only provide a 538 (mode of access note) when it isn't World Wide Web, otherwise do not add.

It is now mandatory to add 588 (new tag) to site the source of the title. Refer to OCLC's Source of Description for examples: http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/5xx/588.shtm.

Use notes for variation in title, edition, history, physical description (those not given in area 5), other formats, or restrictions on use. Do not put a 506 in provider neutral records.

Area 8: Standard numbers

If a number is from a print source and not an electronic resource enter it into 020 ## $z.

Access points:

They are the same as instructed in AACR2, part 2, Chapter 21. Do not make access points for the provider. Use linking entry note (76X-78X) when circumstances allow. When giving a uniform title pretend your resource is not electronic and do not use the qualifier (Online). When dealing with subject access do not misuse the subfield $x Electronic information resources or subfield $v Databases. Do use the appropriate form/genre 655 # 0 Electronic books.

Electronic location and access:

Remote resources require an 856 tag. Code first indicator for access method for the resource (no information=0; ftp=1; http=4). The first field should be $u and the url goes here (should be general and not institution specific); $3 for materials specified/platform; $z for public notes (do not use your public note in an OCLC record) and $y for link text.

Provider neutral records:

The purpose is to develop a provider neutral cataloging model for a single bibliographic record that could be used for all issues of an online monograph. Catalogers are encouraged by OCLC to create a provider-neutral record for e-books even if an equivalent manifestation exists at the point of cataloging. The first question you have to answer: is it really a duplicate of the original record? Bothmann provided examples of provider neutral records and explained that the new guidelines appear to have more flexibility in allowing a new record to be entered. See http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/input/default.shtm.

Audience discussion centered on differences in illustrations or lack of and whether this should be a new record. Are you cataloging the content or the container? Is the 260 field for the original or the current piece? There are no FRBR records and if there were, this would take care of the problem.

An example was given of a book produced to be read on a Kindle, which does not provide color or pagination.

250 _ _ Kindle ed.
300 _ _ 1 electronic book
500 _ _ Ill. & maps not in color
776 0 8 $i Print version: $a Piper
856 4 0 $u http:

e-book sets:

Bothmann followed up the previous discussion with a reference to an article by Martin and Mundle (Kristin E. Martin and Kavita Mundle, "Notes on Operations: Cataloging E-Books and Vendor Records: A Case Study at the University of Illinois at Chicago," Library Resources & Technical Services 54, no. 4 (October 2010): 227-237) that discusses cataloging e-books and vendor records. Having provider neutral guidelines would make record selection easier and make the record display more readable, but maintenance more difficult. He stressed you need to have an exit strategy planned if you lose access to these records and have to pull them out of your catalog. How do you tell if the bibliographic record is a provider neutral record? Some hints that indicate it might be are the absence of a provider url or a provider name in the 260, 300 field states 1 online resource, and there is an OCLC symbol in the 040 field. Provider neutral records were created after >August 2009, so it must be after that date to be considered a provider neutral record.

Bothmann's presentation can be found at http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/conference/2010/files/Cataloging%20Electronic%20Books-OLAC-2010.pdf.


Cataloging for Special Collections

Presented by Marcia Barrett, University of Alabama
Reported by Barbara R. Tysinger, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Presented by Marcia Barrett of the University of Alabama W.S Hoole Special Collections Library, this workshop was expanded to address cataloging concerns not only for traditional archival materials, but also rare books, manuscript music, graphic materials, cartographic materials, and much more. She emphasized Collection Level Cataloging (CLC), rather than item level cataloging with which most of us are familiar.

Barrett opened her talk with an overview of the factors that make special collections "special,"fragility, scarcity, and significance, as well as artistic, monetary, and intrinsic value. She pointed out that in some cases the items within a collection have little value individually, but that they gain value and significance as part of the larger collection.

Barrett next identified the various standards available for cataloging special collections, chiefly AACR2, the various DCRM (Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials) format specific standards (books, serials, cartographic, graphics, and music), and the AMIM (Archival Moving Image Materials) standard for moving images, some of which have been available for several years, and some of which are still in preparation or are being revised. DACS (Describing Archives: A Content Standard), the standard used by archivist to process and describe archival collections was also mentioned.

Again, Barrett emphasized Collection Level Cataloging (CLC), rather than item level cataloging, a concept that is found more often in archival collections where entire groups of records are housed together and "cataloged" as a unit. CLC involves the creation of a single bibliographic record describing a group of materials, focusing on that group as a whole, with emphasis on the relationships that exist among items within the collection. Such CLC records usually draw on traditions and standards from both bibliographic cataloging and archival processing to describe complex collections. She then discussed the factors that make a group of materials a collection, including what the individual items have in common and why they have been gathered together; whether acquired by the library as a whole, or assembled over time; and whether or not the collection is finite (closed), or will include additional items as they are acquired. Next followed a discussion of the types of things that might be considered for Collection Level. Cataloging, which includes groups of manuscripts, photographs, moving images, maps, or other media considered to have historical significance and groups of minor, ephemeral or difficult to describe items. CLC treatment can identify and provide access to materials that might otherwise remain uncataloged hidden assets.

Barrett then reviewed the areas of a cataloging record as they are used in Collection Level Cataloging, highlighting required elements and recommended optional items, associating those items with their corresponding MARC tags, and giving illustrative examples. Here the participants first encounter the RDA influence as Barrett shows how the GMD and MARC 300 are likely to change when RDA is implemented. For readers interested in the field by field review, Barrett has made the slides from her presentation available at http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/conference/2010/files/CatalogingForSpecialCollections.pdf.

The participants were then given the opportunity to apply their newly found understanding of CLC by cataloging a collection of photographs provided by Barrett. The actual CLC record for that collection was then shared with the group for checking. There was also a comparison of the differences between an AACR2 MARC record and a DACS MARC record. Questions were asked and answered throughout the workshop, but Barrett also allowed time at the end for more questions and follow-up.

The workshop bibliography is also available at http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/conference/2010/files/BibliographyCatalogingForSpecialCollections.pdf



Basic Sound Records

Presented by Pam Newberg, Chadron State College
Reported by Liselle Drake, United States Government Printing Office

The head of Technical Services in the library of Chadron State College and past chairperson of ALCTS (Association for Library Collections and Technical Services [a division of the American Library Association]), Pam Newberg, provided instruction for Basic Sound Recordings according to the current content standard, AACR2r, and provided a preview of the expected successor standard, RDA. The framework for the presentation was "How are sound recordings cataloged differently than books?" Specimens selected for exercises were commercially published CDs, of which one was a two-disc collection of various classical composers' works, one was a single CD of one singer's interpretations of another singer's work, and one was a packaged set of three CDs of one singer/songwriter/performer's previous releases.

The first difference covered is the chief source of information which, for compact discs, is the disc surface. Other differences are: the Leader for the Form of Material, viz., i for Nonmusical (often Spoken), and j for Musical; the subset of fixed length fields that are specific to music, viz., MARC 008 positions 18-34; and, use of the GMD"sound recording." Among the MARC 008 fields for music, the Form of Composition values for the exercises included "multiple forms" and "songs." Clarification was offered that the Form of Item value of "s" for "electronic" would be inaccurate for CDs because of that value's applicability to carriers requiring the use of a computer, which CDs do not necessarily require.

Whereas books typically bear ISBNs that are reflected in MARC 020, sound recordings typically bear formatted publisher numbers reflected in MARC 028. In response to one question asking if the publisher number could be reflected in a General Note (MARC 500) when the local system cannot accommodate MARC 028, the instructor answered affirmatively. This response later was echoed by the closing speaker's exhortation to catalogers to exploit MARC's flexibility to meet patron needs when the OPAC cannot.

More differences covered include:

--- Consideration of two dates for sound recordings, of which the preferred one is Phonogram to indicate copyright associated with the recording of the specific performance, and expressed as "p" encased in a circle, or ℗. The secondary preference is for the familiar copyright date (©) which could, possibly ambiguously, apply to such elements as program notes or container design;

--- In physical description, catalogers may use the phrase "sound disc" in the extent area (MARC 300 $a). In a departure from the typical use of metric expression to record size for carrier (MARC 300 $c), catalogers reflect inches rather than centimeters, a protocol reflective of CD technology's development in the U.S. where the Imperial system is preferred;

--- Among technical elements, coverage of differences for "digital storage" versus "digital playback," and the meaning of "AnaloArea I: MARC control fieldsg electrical storage" as defined by em>MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data for the format's additional Physical Description (MARC 007).

Differences in Notes:

Unlike records for books, records for sound recordings bear Participant/Performer notes (MARC 511), Creation/Production Credits (MARC 508) and a General Note (MARC 500) for the carrier, e.g., "Compact disc." To one question about use of singular versus plural forms of (i.e., of "disc" vs. "discs") in the record, Ms. Newberg explained that the carrier form in the general note is always singular because it expresses a single carrier type, whereas the plural form is allowable as necessary in the physical description area.

Other elements considered for bibliographic description in the exercises included: UPC (Universal Product Code) (MARC 024), edition statement, series statement, and the option to record specific total play time in MARC 306. For the packaged three-CD set, determination of cataloging treatment would be contingent upon the local packaging need for patrons' optimal access. That decision would determine whether to create a collection-level record or analytics for each CD. If a collection level record were provided, then the recommendation is to reflect all publisher numbers, collective and individual, in MARC 028 and MARC 500 fields.

Because of the array of creative responsibilities to reflect, e.g., for performers and producers, another difference from book cataloging is prolific use of added entries. With added entries in MARC 700 and 710 fields, catalogers may apply Relator codes ($4) or Relator terms ($e) provided by the MARC 21 Relator Code and Term List, http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relacode.html, although $4 abbreviations will disappear with RDA.

The provision of title-level access to each piece of performed music depends upon the capabilities of the local ILS. Catalogers may use either an Enhanced Contents Note (MARC 505 00) or added entries for composer (or performer or arranger) and uniform title. The complexity of uniform titles for music would require instruction beyond the scope of this session.

A brief preview of RDA's ramifications for sound recordings showed the following fields and data values for the music CDs used in the exercises. These MARC fields would replace the GMD (MARC 245 $h) with content, media, and carrier types reflected as:

MARC 336   Performed music
MARC 337    Audio
MARC 338    Audio disc

In RDA, the carrier type also may be used in expression of extent in physical description, e.g., "1 audio disc" (MARC 300 $a). This preview provided a harmonious supplement to the morning's full-group exercises that were led by Dr. Robert Ellett to practice applying content/media/carrier combinations as defined by RDA for audio-visual materials.


The Return of Cataloging of Unusual Sound Recordings

Presented by Robert Freeborn, Pennsylvania State University
Reported by Dawn Loomis, Valencia Community College

Robert Freeborn began with disclaimers that this session assumed the participants had a basic understanding of AACR and MARC; he would not be covering podcast/RSS feeds; he would be "hitting the high points"; and, of course, some points are open to cataloger's judgment. With that, the session began.

Robert discussed several problem areas to be aware of when cataloging unusual sound recordings. These include the 245 subfield $h GMD, because they are generic terms which describe the medium of the item. Also, the physical description can be problematic. Notes can cause give one pause as to what goes where. Also, remember what to do when you must add field 006 and 007.

So what were the unusual sound recordings he discussed? Enhanced CDs, Hybrid CDs, Flip disc CDs, Encrypted or copy protected CDs, DVD-audio discs/SACDs, Custom CDs, Shaped CDs, Playaway, SlotMusic, Remote Sound Files, and a couple of others. There are several documents on the OLAC Web site which are helpful (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/358).

At the very end Robert did provide a sneak peek at what some of these records will look like in RDA. He laid out the comparison records, and then had separate slides which commented on the changes.

I found his slides most helpful to the discussion of the various forms of sound recordings. And a quote on one slide says it all, "Do not agonize" (Jay Weitz, OCLC). When cataloging unusual sound recordings you sometimes have to use cataloger's judgment, but not cataloger's agony.


Cataloging Individual Oral History Interviews

Presented by Susan C. Wynne, University of Wyoming
Reported by Gena George, Tulane University

Susan Wynne is monographs cataloger at the University of Wyoming. This workshop drew examples from a project that she and Reagan Grimsley, Archivist, developed and implemented to catalog approximately 500 oral histories collected and housed at the Columbus State University (CSU) Archives in Columbus, GA. The interviews are on different media, but primarily analog recordings and transcripts. The project ran from 2004-2006, and the procedures they developed are still being used, though likely with some updating, at CSU.

The session began with the definition of oral history and the elements generally included in an interview, as well as the importance of oral histories. She briefly described the two methods of organizing oral histories, either as a project which has a common theme, subject, etc., and whose interviews are conducted as part of a formal plan, or as a collection, which takes interviews from various sources and assembles them into a group for ease of use. Collections generally have a theme or focus, but it may be broader in scope than a project or cover multiple subjects.

After going over the different methods used in organizing oral histories-MARC cataloging, finding aids, inventories, digital libraries, etc.-the session focused on adding MARC records to a catalog. She looked first at the issues a cataloger would have to consider before even starting the cataloging process. These included answering questions such as whether to catalog at the individual, project, or collection level; what format to describe; the level of authority control for the cataloging; what type of classification would be used; and choice of cataloging method.

Wynne then took the participants through an in-depth walkthrough of a MARC record for an individual interview using examples from the CSU project, as well as other libraries. There was active participation from the attendees citing examples from their own experience. Participants received five handouts, including a selected bibliography, part of a transcript of an interview, and sheets for an exercise in cataloging an oral history. At the end of the presentation, participants were given time to work on the exercise and then Wynne went through the highlights of the catalog record. She wrapped up the workshop by stressing the importance of collaboration between catalogers, archivists, and oral historians before giving a brief view on how RDA may address oral histories.

Susan's presentation and handouts can be downloaded from http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/conference/2010/workshops.html. Click on the desired link after the session description.


What Is It, Anyway? Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials

Presented by Janis L. Young, Library of Congress
Reported by Scott M. Dutkiewicz, Clemson University Libraries

Janis Young, the coordinator of the genre/form thesaurus projects at the Library of Congress, provided a summary of the development of the Library of Congress Genre/Form Thesaurus for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT), with an emphasis on application of terms for moving images, sound recordings, and cartographic materials. She explained what the terms were designed to accomplish and the theory that stands behind the Thesaurus, covered future changes in MARC coding, discussed specific policies, and took questions from participants.

Catalogers have tried many ways to express the distinction between the nature (is-ness) and the subject (aboutness) of an expression. Although the 655 genre/form field was defined in 1995, a thesaurus constructed with authority records had not existed until 2007, when the present series of genre/form projects began. LC has more than dozen genre/form guides or thesauri, but only LCSH and the new LCGFT enjoy the support of full authority records, which allows for reference structure, machine validation, and updating of terminology. One such thesaurus will also eliminate the need to consult multiple thesauri, thereby increasing efficiency for the cataloger and ease of retrieval for patrons. As new interfaces incorporate facet searching, LCGFT will be ready to deliver.

Although the authority and bibliographic coding of LCGFT is currently identical to that of LCSH, there will be a new coding to fully differentiate LCGFT from LCSH, although no earlier than March 2011. This will be accomplished by coding authority records in 008/11 to z and 040 $f lcgft. Bibliographically, the new pattern will be 655 #7 a [Term.] $2 lcgft. All current genre/form authority records will be cancelled and reissued. This will be the first time subfield 2 will be controlled; OCLC will be modifying programming to allow this to happen in WorldCat.

With the new coding and the formal separation of LCGFT from LCSH, Young described plans to release a new manual in .PDF or print format with loose-leaf updates in 2012. This manual will include many materials in the Genre/Form Web site FAQ. LC is also investigating whether to remove LCGFT from the LCSH Supplementary Vocabularies volume and provide a separate printed product.

In contrast to subject headings, which use subdivision, genre/form terms utilize faceting, which allows for one concept per field, thereby reinforcing predictability. In many cases existing LCSH terminology was initially used for term selection, in order to provide "one-stop" searching. However, given the state of technology, any future changes will be easier to accomplish. LCGFT also uses LCSH cross reference rules, but future adjustments are possible, such as considering whether to make references from Westerns to Western films or references between television programs and films terms.

Young emphasized that data is not repeated within a record and, "if a characteristic is present in the descriptive portion of the record, it probably isn't part of the genre or form." Therefore, since language and place of production are covered in other descriptive fields, she explained that terms such as German films or Feature films $z Germany do not achieve the goal of LCGFT. Rather, catalogers should use field 257, Country of Production, which has been redefined for general, rather than just archival use.

Young briefly reviewed the status of the LCGFT projects. Moving image and Recorded sound are now out of active development, but are open to SACO (Subject Authority Cooperative program) proposals; Cartography is in full swing with LC starting to perform bibliographic updates, based on an implementation date of Sept. 1, 2010. Law terms will first appear on Tentative Weekly List 44 (Nov. 3, 2010) with LC implementation planned for early 2011. Young asked for individuals who know catalogers in communities associated with religious law to send references to her. Music, coordinated by Geraldine Ostrove, is being developed in coordination with the Music Library Association. About 1,000 terms have been identified. The problem of mediums of performance has not yet been solved; likely they will appear in the bibliographic record outside of LCGFT. The Religion project has gained a collaborator, the American Theological Library Association, and funnel and plans to release a thesaurus in 2011. The Literature project will also begin in 2011.

The remainder of the presentation was devoted to examples of how to assign LCSH headings and LCGFT to moving images, recorded sound, and cartographic materials. General policies are to apply LCSH subject headings and form subdivisions along with LCGFT terms since LCGFT and LCSH work symbiotically. Post-coordination will bring out the presence of multiple genres and forms. LCGFT terms do not subdivide.

For moving images, one should always apply one of the four Fiction/Nonfiction terms, and for films, either Feature Films or Short films. It is important to note that although Feature films did bear a "fictional" component in the past, the current usage is intended to fulfill the facet of duration only. Cinematic works are considered fiction; broadcasts or recordings of events are considered nonfiction. Hence, these expressions are covered by terms beginning Filmed or Televised. Internet videos, webisodes and podcasts are a growing area of concern. The practice is to apply any specific film or television terms that closely fit, and to post-coordinate with LCGFT Internet videos, webisodes, or Podcasts. If one is not sure whether an expression is a webisode or an Internet video, Young recommended defaulting to Internet videos.

Unlike the instruction for moving images, in recorded sound the Fiction/Nonfiction terms are optional. Probably the most frequently encountered form terms will be Audiobooks and children's audiobooks.

For those who catalog maps, Young explained that the inverted Maps subdivisions, such as Maps, Topographic have been cancelled. The new approach is to apply the subject headings as instructed and use form subdivisions (e.g., Maps, Aerial views). The LCGFT term, such as Topographic maps, will post-coordinate to bring out the specific genre or form. Young noted that the apparent repeat of LCSH $v Aerial photographs and LCGFT Aerial photographs is an approved practice. Atlases are covered by one of four atlas terms combined with one of more specific map terms. The term World atlases stands alone. In a similar manner, digital cartographic materials are provided for with a combination of LCSH and LCGFT terms, such as Digital maps and Raster data.

This well-presented workshop held participants' attention through the entire two-hour session, and they asked many pertinent questions, in addition to the observation, mentioned above, about the definition of Feature films. Could the running time recorded in 008/18-20 (OCLC, Time) be used instead of the feature/short binary? Young would investigate this possibility. Another question was raised about subjects that appear in LCGFT terms, such as "franchises" like Batman films or characters like Sherlock Holmes films. A discussion paper may be forthcoming from LC's Moving Image, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division (MBRS) on this topic. In response to a workshop example, attendees also wanted to know when to apply Children's films, particularly if the work is a "family film." Young said MBRS bases the decision on the intended audience, as related by such information as the rating system. The form subdivision $v Juvenile films should still be applied; although a local practice was mentioned (arrange $v Drama and LCGFT Children's films for films that appeal to both children and adults). Young clarified that headings that end with shows are analogous to television programs terms. With the number of alternate form/genre lists in existence, some based on LCSH, there was a question about the proper coding for such terms. If the scope note for the LCSH heading makes its use possible as a form or genre, code 655 #0; if not, code 655 #7 [Term.] $2 local or 655 #4. Always verify the proper usage of such adapted usages against LCSH. Which coding pattern is preferred depends on the ability to control the heading in the local ILS.

Given the resources provided at this workshop, the LC genre/form Web site, and elsewhere, special formats catalogers may confidently apply LCGFT to moving image, sound recording, and cartographic materials. Janis Young encouraged participation in the upcoming projects, and asked workshop participants to respond to discussion papers as she posts them to OLAC-L and other cataloging list serves.

Sources included the Subject Headings Manual (H 1913 and H 1969.5) and LC's genre/form Web site, http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/genreformgeneral.html. Contact Janis L. Young, LC's genre/form coordinator at jayo@loc.gov or policy@loc.gov.


Describing Reproductions: A Series of Decisions

Presented by Kevin Furniss, Tulane University and Morag Boyd, Ohio State University
Reported by Jan Mayo, East Carolina University

Recipients of the 2008 OLAC Research Grant, Kevin Furniss, serials and electronic resources cataloger, Tulane University, and Morag Boyd, head, Special Collections Cataloging, Ohio State University, explored the murky area of reproductions cataloging. Their research topic was prompted by Kevin's asking Bobby Bothmann for guidance about when to use the 533 or 534 fields and found out there was no guidance.

On page 1 of Johnson's Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Reproductions, 1995, a reproduction is defined as "an item that is a copy of another item and is intended to function as a substitute for that item. The copy may be in a different physical format from the original. Reproduction is a mechanical rather than an intellectual process." In other words, if there has been an intellectual change, then it is not a reproduction.

Current approaches to cataloging reproductions have varied widely. A microform is cataloged using the original item with the reproduction information in the 533 field. An electronic resource is cataloged as itself and may or may not reference the print original. A facsimile is also cataloged as itself, with a note referring to the original. Differences in format have resulted in differences in cataloging, which has caused much confusion. Compounding that confusion has been the United States cataloging community's refusal to adopt AACR2's 1978 shift from the facsimile theory (cataloging the container) to the edition theory (cataloging the content). The rest of the world changed to the edition theory and has been cataloging the content of a reproduction for several decades. The approaches to cataloging facsimiles, provider-neutral e-book, and dissertations in a variety of formats contradict each other, produce inconsistent records, and confuse patrons.

Kevin and Morag were considering how to catalog reproductions in light of FRBR and RDA when the Library of Congress released a report in April 2010 on the same topic. RDA will be using FRBR principles, which concur with AACR2's current practice of cataloging the piece in hand (edition theory). The LC discussion paper finds that the RDA test period would be a good time to reconsider how reproductions are cataloged, because the RDA test records will allow them to examine records cataloged using the piece in hand.

There are pros and cons to both the facsimile and edition theories of cataloging reproductions, but the biggest drawback with the latter appears to be that it contradicts past practice. LC recommended adopting the AACR/RDA rules for describing a reproduction, a position Kevin and Morag support.

The rest of their presentation discussed various ways to describe the relationship between the original and the reproduction, the most useful of which appears to be the 775/776 linking fields. However, they believe even more consistency is needed in cataloging reproductions and suggest the exploration of additional ways to enhance the relationship between the original and the reproduction. Two ways Kevin and Morag suggest are FRBR displays and form subject subdivisions.

Kevin and Morag's presentation is at http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/conference/2010/files/DescribingReproductionsOLAC2010final.pdf.



Reported by Teresa E. Simmons, Kettering College

Video Data Management System - Anna Fiolek

VDMS (Video Data Management System) is an ongoing project to link and provide online access to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Ocean Exploration Digital video and image data. Currently, there are 38 digital collection-level (parent) metadata records and over 800 product-level (child) records in NOAALINC (NOAA Library and Information Network Catalog). Metadata was mapped between different schemas, cross-walked, and exchanged between the NOAA Central Library Network, NODC (National Oceanic Data Center), and NCDDC (National Coastal Data Development Center) data centers to provide comprehensive information on NOAA scientific videos and related products. As more resources are provided they hope to provide access to more digital video holdings and also increase access through NOAALINC and the WorldCat catalog. See http://www.lib.noaa.gov/uhtbin/cgisirsi/0LXmL0RqXo/SILVERSPRG/80520023/9.

FRBR and Facets go to the Movies - Kelley McGrath

Kelley presented the work of OLAC's Moving Image Work-Level Records Task Force and the question of how to deal with FRBR and moving images. They defined what a moving image work is (WPE: work-primary expression), where the boundaries are between works, what elements are needed to describe a WPE, and how to describe a WPE. The Task Force also experimented with trying to extract WPE data from existing MARC bibliographic records. FRBR and facets were used in the mocked-up interface as the most useful tools for searching. Examples were shown in a handout.

Cataloging Learning Resources Center Collection - Miriam Hudgins

The Learning Resource Center (LRC) of the Mercer University School of Medicine's manual check-out system did not work well which resulted in many lost materials; including class recordings, x-rays, anatomical charts and models, pathological specimens, microscopes, and other medical instruments. These materials needed to be cataloged, processed, and available as quickly as possible. OCLC records were used when available, but original cataloging had to be done for the rest. The handout describes some of the additional classification that had to be done.

More is Better: Enhancing Access to Classical Music on CDs - Linda H. West

The Northeastern State University music faculty are heavy users of the online catalog for classical music. As a result, they wanted more title entries for CDs. The librarians agreed to add up to thirty-six entries for any works not in the following categories: complete collections, popular music, and jazz. These enhancements made the CD collection more accessible to faculty and students. Linda included a list of classical music cataloging sources in her handout.

Implementing a DVD Security System at UNC Wilmington - Susannah Benedetti and Gary Moore

In 2010, Randall Library at the UNC (University of North Carolina) Wilmington transitioned their 10,500 piece DVD collection from an open stack arrangement into locking DVD cases from AGI RedTag. This decision was made because of the growing number of missing DVDs. They first planned what they needed to do to accomplish this task with the least disruption to patrons and Circulation staff and then determined the workflow. There were benefits and inconveniences, as well as some extra expenses, but the main goal has been met: lessening the loss of DVDs.

M-M-M Good! Reclassifying a Music CD Collection into LC - Valerie Adams

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Lupton Library decided to reclassify their Music CD collection from sequential accession numbers to call numbers using Library of Congress Classification. The music CD and cassette collection had been in closed stacks, and the library wanted their patrons to have direct access to the collection. With over 2000 CDs they started with anything already classified in OCLC. The tools they used included their online catalog, the LCC M schedule, and Richard P. Smiraglia's Shelflisting Music (2nd ed.) The success of this project was demonstrated by an increase in the number of check-outs and in the browsability of the collection.

Streaming Guide to Cataloging Remote Access Multimedia: A How-to Virtual Manual for Catalogers - Marielle Veve

Marielle has created an online guide to cataloging streaming media for catalogers and School of Information Science students. Students especially have a difficult time understanding static explanations of how to catalog multimedia. These online guides provide descriptions of and cataloging templates for video, audio, e-books, Web games, and podcasts. Each guide follows the recommended guidelines set forth in the Best Practices for Cataloging Streaming Media (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/streamingmedia.pdf) created by the OLAC Cataloging Policy Committee. See http://www.lib.utk.edu/~veve/.

Creating the New Provider-Neutral Records - Shelley L. Smith

At the University of West Georgia, Shelley Smith (senior cataloger) is removing microfiche from their catalog when e-books are freely available online, such as at the Internet Archive and uploading bibliographic records for the e-books to their catalog. If a bibliographic record for the e-resource exists in OCLC WorldCat, Shelley is revising it to conform to the new provider-neutral guidelines (available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/PN-Guide.pdf), or if it doesn't exist, she is creating one. Some points to remember about the P-N record that differentiate it from the print version are the following MARC fields: Form, 300, 588, 776, and usually one or more 856 fields.

Introducing Slot Music and Guide to Cataloging Slot Music Based on AACR2 Chapters 6 and 9 - Cyrus Z. Ford

slotMusic is a microSD (micro secure digital) card preloaded with high quality, DRM (digital rights management)-free MP3 music of artists from EMI Music, Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group. slotMusic can be used in any device capable of MP3 file playback from a microSD card such as a cell phone or MP3 player. There are always challenges when cataloging new media that doesn't seem to fit neatly into any one category. Cyrus used two different chapters of AACR2 rules (Sound Recordings and Electronic Resources) to bring order to chaos.



Return to the top of the page.


©Taylor & Francis