What's New | CAPC | Conferences | Newsletters | Useful Websites | Search | Home

OLAC CATALOGER’S JUDGMENT
Jay Weitz


Identifying DVDs in a Record
Question     I am relatively new to cataloging and am cataloging some DVDs. Can "DVD" be added to the subfield $h within the videorecording brackets? If not, how, aside from the 300 field, is it possible to distinguish videos from DVDs?

Answer     If you are cataloging according to AACR2, the GMD in field 245 subfield $h should be the unqualified designation "[videorecording]" according to Rule and LCRI 1.1C. The identification of the video format (DVD, VHS, Beta, etc.) goes in field 538, according to Rule 7.7B10(f). You may, however, choose to place this note first, in accordance with Rules 1.7B and 7.7B. In addition, be aware that, as of the September 1 implementation of the 2004 Update to AACR2, you also have the following option under 7.5B1:
Optionally, use a term in common usage to record the specific format of the physical carrier.
      [Example:]     1 DVD-video
Even if you choose to follow this option, identification of the videorecording format in field 538 is still necessary.


History of the GMD for Electronic Resources

Question     Is there a resource that gives a history of the GMD for interactive multimedia, computer files, and electronic resources? As I understand it, "electronic resource" has replaced "computer file" and "interactive multimedia". Is this correct? I ran across a record that was brought into our library’s system in 2000. The record had the GMD "interactive multimedia". When I looked the item up in OCLC, the GMD had been revised to "electronic resource".

Answer     The history of the General Material Designation for what are now called "electronic resources" is a checkered one. Here is a rough history, at least from the perspective of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition. The original 1978 AACR2 included the catchy GMD "machine-readable data file", which was still the GMD when the MARC bibliographic format for computer software was first implemented in 1984. The draft revision of AACR2 Chapter 9, published in 1987, changed the GMD to "computer file". In 1994, "interactive multimedia" was added as an alternative GMD for use when applying ALA’s Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia. Finally, with the AACR2 Amendments 2001 package, the GMD was changed once again, to "electronic resource". At the same time (on December 1, 2001), the use of both "computer file" and "interactive multimedia" was discontinued. Through each of those changes, OCLC converted to the new GMD as many of the old GMDs as could be found. Most recently during late 2001 and early 2002, all instances of "machine-readable data file", "interactive multimedia", and "computer file" were converted to "electronic resource". If anyone finds any in WorldCat that were missed (usually because of typographical errors), please let OCLC know and they will be fixed.


Field 041 for Videorecordings

Question     I have three questions about the use of 041 field for videorecordings.

  1. In video records should the 041 field include subfield $h to indicate the original language if dialogue is available in an alternate language? For example: if the film was originally produced with dialogue in English and a DVD had an option for dialogue in French, should a subfield $h be included for English?
          041 1   $a eng $a fre $h eng

  2. If subfield $h is included, should it follow subfield $a and precede subfield $b?
          041 1   $a eng $a fre $h eng $b eng

  3. Should subfield $b include all languages that have subtitles available in a videorecording, or should subfield $b only include those languages that do not appear in subfield $a? For example: if a DVD is in English only, with no alternate language for dialogue, and subtitles are available in English and French, which of the following examples is correct?
          041 1   $a eng $b eng $b fre
          or
          041 1   $a eng $b fre
Answer     Coding field 041 has never been easy for visual materials, but two circumstances in particular have made that coding even more complicated and confusing in recent years. One dates from late 1996 and early 1997, in the development and proliferation of the DVD video format with its vast capacity for multiple language soundtracks, subtitling, and captioning options. The other was the change in 041 coding practice implemented in December 2002 that mandated separate subfielding for each language code rather than multiple language codes in a single subfield. (Those of us who strenuously argued against this change because of its severe impact on the cataloging of visual materials and sound recordings, especially, lost that debate.) So, with that background, here are my recommendations.
  1. When a translation is involved, a subfield $h for the original language should follow the subfield(s) that represent the language(s) of translation.

  2. The subfield $h containing the original language should follow directly after the subfield (or the group of similarly-coded subfields) representing the language(s) of translation.

  3. The general definition of subfield $b in MARC21 reads, "Subfield $b contains the codes for languages of summaries when the language of the summary is other than that of the text". Specifically for audiovisual materials it says that "subfield $b contains the language code (s) of overprinted titles (subtitles) when they differ from the language of the sound track". (Emphasis mine, in both cases.) The clear intention of MARC21 is to code only those languages not already found in subfield $a, which makes your second example correct.
Follow-up Question     What about videorecordings with closed-captioning? Does 041 contain coding for closed-captioning text? As an example: for a DVD of a movie originally produced in English, there are English and Spanish versions, subtitles in French, and closed-captioning only in English. If coding for the closed-captioning is supposed to go in the 041, what subfield would it go into?

Follow-up Answer     Closed-captioning can be considered to be similar to subtitling in the context of 041 coding. Languages of both captioning and subtitling would go in subfield $b, but only when the language in question does not already appear in subfield $a. In your example, English would already be coded in subfield $a, so it would not be repeated in subfield $b. That would likely be the case in most instances of closed-captioning, which generally reflect the language actually spoken in a video.

Another Follow-up Question     The MARC21 guidance for audiovisual materials says that "subfield $b contains the language code(s) of overprinted titles (subtitles) when they differ from the language of the sound track". The clear intention of that guidance is to code only those languages not already found in subfield $a. Why is that? Would it not be more useful to have a complete listing of all the language tracks and all the subtitled languages in the 041 field?

Another Follow-up Answer     I completely agree that it would make more sense (and, in theory, could assist in specialized retrieval in a system sophisticated enough to sort everything out) to code everything in its proper place. The downside, of course, is that 041 coding would be that much more complicated. My guess about why that particular coding anomaly exists is two-fold. First, there is the traditional book orientation of MARC. For books, subfield $b is used for summaries, which are not all that different from any other text in the same book; not adding a code for a summary in the same language as the rest of the text seems to be a rational avoidance of redundancy. Compare that to the fundamental differences between a language spoken in a video and a language appearing on a video image (either as subtitles or as captioning). Even if it happens to be the same language, the difference is that of hearing the spoken word versus reading the written word. In retrospect, it probably would have made more sense to have subtitling and captioning in a different subfield altogether and/or to have coded all relevant languages. Second, and in the defense of those who maintain the MARC formats, the realities of MARC coding are always trying desperately to catch up to the advances of technology. In a world of motion picture film, and even of videotape, the language possibilities for subtitling and captioning were relatively limited. DVDs exploded those limits and MARC does not yet reflect that change, if it ever will.


Questionable Date 1 and the DtSt Hierarchy

Question     For some DVDs published between 2000 and 2001 (with no dates on the items and the Website giving only the range of dates), I put "[between 2000 and 2001]" as the date. Normally, I would code that information in the fixed field as "DtSt: q" and put both dates in the Date area. However, I had the recording dates for the plays, and, since a "p" DtSt has higher priority than "q", I coded the recording date in Date2. So, should the 2000 or 2001 go in Date1? I went with 2001, but I have never been certain.

Answer     As I understand it, when you must code for a higher priority DtSt (such as code "p") but still have a questionable date (which would have been code "q") for Date 1, you would follow the input rule for code "q" as your Date 1. That would be the "earliest possible date" in Date 1, 2000 in this case.


Chief Source or Not Chief Source?

Question     When the title is not in the chief source, a "source of title" note is given; then that source becomes the de facto chief source. Does that mean that anything in the "regular" chief source is now considered to be outside the CSI and should be bracketed? For example, the title of a video is only on the cassette label, but there are statements of responsibility in the end credits. It seems to me that the title frames, credits, etc. are still part of the CSI, along with the source of the title, and hence there need not be any brackets. A colleague of mine posited the above theory about the shift in chief sources; it seems logical too. What do you say?

Answer     According to AACR2 7.0B1, the chief source of information for a videorecording includes "its container (and container label) if the container is an integral part of the piece (e.g., a cassette)". So, the videocassette label to which you refer is part of the chief source and such a title would not need to be bracketed. This is in keeping also with the spirit of 1.0A3 in the 2004 Update of AACR2, officially implemented as of September 1, 2004: "If the information traditionally given on the title page is not complete on one source … treat the sources as if they were a single source". But that sort of avoids your question. If a source of title note reads, for instance, "Title from container" (that is, a non-integral container), I interpret this to mean just that, that the title is taken from the container, rather than from the chief source and is therefore properly bracketed. Furthermore, this note refers only to the title. Since the statements of responsibility do come from the chief source (that is, the title frames), they would not be bracketed.


Definition of Type "m"

Question     Can you provide a list of what can actually go on a computer file workform now? I know it has become rather limited.

Answer     Following MARC21, OCLC’s Bibliographic Formats and Standards (BFAS), currently limits the use of Type code "m" (Computer File) to "the following classes of electronic resources: computer software (including programs, games and fonts), numeric data, computer-oriented multimedia, online systems or services. For these classes of materials, if a significant aspect causes it to fall into another Type category, code for that significant aspect. Other classes are coded for their most significant aspect (e.g., language material, graphic or cartographic material, sound, music and moving image). In case of doubt or if the most significant aspect cannot be determined, consider the item a computer file". There is more detail in "Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines", which is on the OCLC Website at:<http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresources/>.

Follow-up Question     There is always more to the story, it seems. While my colleagues tried to assert that if something is all computer-related, it goes on computer files format, I said that if it is essentially a monograph, it goes on monograph format (with an 006/007 to explain the "computer-ness" of the item). They were unconvinced. The case in point was a CD-ROM that was a conglomeration of items that the CD-ROM points to on the Internet.

The 520 for this CD looks like this:
520     "This CD contains information on ITC’s various e-related training initiatives, diagnostic tools and advisory services designed to help small and medium-sized firms in developing countries and transition economies put ‘e’ to work and overcome the digital divide. This CD also contains best practice cases and publications on the issue of e-trade".--index.htm.
The 505 looks like this:
505 0     Overview -- Putting "E" to work -- The changing marketplace -- ITC at WSIS -- E-trade strategy -- E @ ITC -- E-Trade Bridge -- Case studies -- E-Publications -- Forum magazine -- E-related articles -- Books -- Technical papers.
Almost all of it would be considered monographic in nature, except for, of course, the serial, Forum Magazine. With a conglomeration like this, should it be put on a computer file record, applying the option, "In case of doubt or if the most significant aspect cannot be determined, consider the item a computer file"? How would you catalog this?

Follow-up Answer     The OCLC Web document that I mentioned above explains the changes that took place in MARC21 regarding electronic resources that were published in 1997 and implemented by LC, RLG, and OCLC in 1998. The current definitions and applications are also documented in MARC21, BFAS, and several of the LC documents to which there are links from the OCLC Guidelines, especially LC’s "Guidelines for Coding Electronic Resources in Leader/06" <http://www.loc.gov/marc/ldr06guide.html>, which I would urge your colleagues to read.

From your explanation, the CD-ROM sounds as though it is a collection of mostly textual material. For the "diagnostic tools" in the CD, does this refer to the presence of the actual tools themselves (that is, software) or simply explanations of, or writing about, those tools? If the software tools themselves are present and constitute some substantial part of the CD-ROM (or are themselves the real reason for the existence of the CD-ROM), I would say that Type "m" is appropriate. However, if the tools themselves are not present (or they are there but in an unusable demonstration version, or the like), Type "m" would probably not be appropriate. The mere presence of links to remote Web resources does not make a textual resource Type "m" either. On the other hand, if there are, substantive videos (of someone explaining the use of one of the tools, for instance) along with the textual material, considering the CD-ROM not to have a predominant aspect might make sense, justifying Type "m".

As far as Forum Magazine is concerned, unless this CD-ROM is going to be released periodically with a new issue of the "magazine" embedded in it on some ongoing basis, I do not think that this qualifies as serial material. (Of course, I say this as a complete ignoramus regarding serials cataloging.) Instead, it strikes me as more of analogous to the inclusion of a single sample issue of a journal or like the reprinting of articles from a serial in a monograph, or something like that.

So, if this CD is predominantly textual, it would go on Type "a" with field 006 (and 007) for the electronic aspects. You may, of course, more fully explain the contents in another note if that is appropriate.

Follow-up Response     There are no actual diagnostic tools on this CD-ROM; it just mentions tools that are available (for money). There is even a PowerPoint presentation on the CD-ROM to show off the diagnostic tools. However, it is still just talking about the tools, not actually the programs themselves. Under the Forum Magazine link, it is just about the fact that it exists, with sample issues of the magazine; it does not appear that they will be putting out another one of these. So I believe this confirms that this is monograph format, needing 006/007 to explain the computer-related parts.


"Physical" Description of Remote Electronic Resources

Question     I have a PDF that, according to vendors, is not available in print, yet is freely available on the Web. It is being cataloged as a remote electronic resource since, at 200 pages, our library has no intention of printing it out. Since physical description and extent can now be recorded for remote electronic resources, I am struggling with how to format subfield $a of the 300 field. Has a decision been made about language and how, or if, to include page numbering? When the PDF is numbered, should the numbering it provides be used? What about unnumbered preliminary pages? Are they included--or not, as with books? Or should the total number of pages be given as it appears in the Adobe Acrobat reader? Here are the various options I have considered:
300 1 PDF (ix, 193 p.) [as numbered on the pages of the actual document]
300     1 PDF (203 p.) [as appears in the Adobe reader screen]
300     1 text file (PDF: ix, 193 p.)
300     1 text file (PDF: 203 p.)
Answer     In the 2004 Update to AACR2 (currently available in print and on Cataloger’s Desktop), the new option for including a "physical description" for remote access electronic resources is spelled out in rules 9.5B3 and 9.5C3:

"9.5B3. Optionally, record the extent of an electronic resource that is available only by remote access. Use an appropriate term preferably taken from subrule .5B of one of the chapters of Part I or a term in common usage. See also 9.5C3.
1 photograph
6 remote-sensing images
1 sound file
Web site
1 electronic text
"9.5C3. When recording the extent of an electronic resource that is available only by remote access, give other details about the resource (e.g., file types) if readily available and considered to be important.
1 photograph : digital, TIFF file
69 p. : digital, PDF file
3 sound files : digital, mp3 file
1 electronic text : HTML file
"If such characteristics cannot be given succinctly, give them in a note (see 9.7B10)."
Although examples remain "illustrative and not prescriptive" (Rule 0.14), these do suggest at least two reasonable standardized approaches. It would seem best to follow, as far as possible, the same subrules .5B referred to in 9.5B3 when recording numbered sequences, including preliminary paging. This all leads to the following suggestions:
300     ix, 193 p. : $b digital, PDF file
or
300    1 electronic text (ix, 193 p.) : PDF file
Clearly, though, the new rules allow considerable (some would say excessive) flexibility on this, and it would be most valuable if there could be some kind of consensus on how to describe such resources precisely and succinctly.

Follow-up Question     How should illustrations be recorded here? Illustrations would normally go in subfield $b as well, but I am not sure of the form.

Follow-up Answer     My suggestion would be:
145 p. : $b digital, PDF file, ill.
or
1 electronic text (145 p.) : $b PDF file, ill.
As I noted previously, I hope that the community can come to some sort of consensus on how to describe these, in the absence of any further assistance from the rules or LCRIs.


DTS and SDDS Designations for Videorecordings

Question     In cataloging VHS & DVD videorecordings, and I have noticed that quite a few of the VHS records in OCLC show line items in the 538 field something like this:
538     VHS, pan & scan (4:3) presentation; Dolby Digital, DTS, SDDS.
I thought that DTS and SDDS are abbreviations for technical capabilities only available on DVDs and similar digital formats. DTS is an alternate audio format similar to, but not the same as, Dolby Digital, so if the VHS has Dolby digital sound, it will not have DTS. As I understand it, DVDs provide the capability to have layers of recorded information, whereas VHS videos are one layer (see <http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.32>). For a video I am cataloging, the copy indicates "DTS, SDDS" (as in the example above, but nowhere on the cassette or on the container for the VHS of this video is there any indication of DTS or SDDS. Is this something that catalogers need to be wary about, especially when copy cataloging or when cloning a "new" record for a video from a record for the same title on DVD?

Answer     For this question, I consulted with my OCLC TechPro colleagues (with thanks especially to Mary Haessig and Lori Peare for their assistance and insights). First, let me give a little background on DTS and SDDS, based on information found in the "DVD Demystified" Website’s link, "DVD Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)" <http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html>), found there in various places, but especially in Section 3.6.2, "Audio details of DVD-Video".
Catalogers transcribed the "DTS" and "SDDS" information from the closing credits of the videos in question. The appearance of these designations in the closing credits of the film strongly suggests to me that they apply specifically to the theatrical release rather than necessarily to any home video version (either VHS or DVD). My inclination would be to omit these designations from the 538 field if they appear only in the film’s closing credits and not as part of the video-specific credits (on the label or on the packaging). If, on the other hand, there is clear indication on its label or packaging that the DVD is DTS encoded, then that information may certainly be included in the bibliographic record.


A Collection of Prints on CD-ROM

Question     I am trying to catalog the wackiest thing--a CD-ROM that appears "home-made". It is essentially a collection of the scanned prints of an artist on a CD-ROM. The CD-ROM has no title, it is just a commercially available writeable CD-ROM. There is no indication who made it, where the prints came from, etc. Would this go on the computer format or books format? It seems that it could be considered to be like a collection of prints in an exhibit catalog, but there was no exhibit and no catalog in evidence. For the 260, should the date be guessed, since it was not really "published" in the normal sense? Or should it just be: "[S.l. ; s.n.]"? Somehow, it feels a little "illegal" to me, but my job is not to question how we got the thing, my job is to catalog it.

Answer     Since it is a collection of still visual materials, the correct Type Code would be "k" (and probably TMat "i"). You will also need field 006 for the computer file aspect, with File coded "c". It also appears that you will need to supply a title. Likewise, in the absence of any publication information, you should supply "[S.l. : $b s.n., $c 200-?]", or something such as that, for the 260 field.


Placement of the Word "Stereo" for Videos

Question     Should "stereo" be placed in the 538 field or should it go in the 300 field? If placing it in the 300 field should it look like this? I have seen it both ways. I could not find any information saying which way was right.
300     1 videocassette (60 min.) :$b sd. col., stereo. ; $c 1/2 in.
or
300     1 videocassette (60 min.) :$b sd., col., stereo ; $c 1/2 in.
or
538     VHS; Stereo.
Answer     Two rules in AACR2 need to be consulted in this case. The first, Rule 7.5C3 for "Sound characteristics" of motion pictures and videorecordings, reads as follows: "Give sd. (sound) or si. (silent) to indicate the presence or absence of a sound track. If a silent film is known to have been photographed at the speed of sound film, give si. at sd. speed". In the absence of any further instructions here, we must conclude that this is the only information that can be included in the Physical Description Area. The next one is Rule 7.7B10, which describes how details of the physical description may be elaborated. Under Section (a) for "Sound characteristics", it reads: "Give any special characteristics of the sound component of a motion picture or videorecording (e.g., optical or magnetic, whether the sound track is physically integrated with the film or the sound is separate on a synchronized recording)". The second example here is "Dolby stereo., mono. compatible". Although such a separate note for the sound characteristics may be included, this information is often combined with other appropriate physical description notes (as allowed by 1.7A5) in a note, as with your third example (except that "stereo" need not be capitalized).

On another note, please remember to add the period to the word "stereo", even though for common usage, the term "stereo" is considered a word in itself, sans period. Within the context of a bibliographic record, AACR2 considers the term to be an abbreviation for stereophonic, duly listed in Appendix B.9. The bibliographic record is a different realm of human experience, where all sorts of oddities, such as ISBD punctuation, hold sway. The abbreviated form of "stereo" is one of those oddities mandated by the rules.


Describing the Printout of a PDF File

Question     What term or phrase in the 533 subfield $a would best describe a printout of a PDF file that was sent to our library via interlibrary loan? The original remains only in paper form. PDF was the means of transmitting the document but the file does not remain. The following possibilities were considered:
533     $a Printout.
533     $a Printout. $n Made from temporary pdf file.
533     $a Printout of pdf file received via email.
533     $a Printout of temporary pdf file received via email.
Answer     In this electronic age, what may once have been a relatively simple issue of original versus reproduction can become very convoluted. If I understand the situation correctly, a print original was transformed into a PDF by the loaning library. The PDF was mailed to your library and then your library printed it out. After printing out the document, the PDF used for transmission was deleted. That makes this printout a third generation reproduction that happens to be in the same (paper) format as the original (although not necessarily in the exact same configuration). In the possibilities considered (above) for cataloging the printout, the use of field 533 suggests that you are proposing to catalog the PDF in the body of the record and that you have chosen to follow LCRI 1.11A for reproductions. While this is a legitimate way to deal with this, you may want to read the LCRI and instead use the option suggested by LC in the second paragraph to "delineate details of the reproduction on the record for the original manifestation rather than create a separate record for the reproduction". If that is appropriate for your situation, it may be a much simpler approach, allowing you to explain it in a local note, as you see fit. That would get around the conundrum of cataloging the no-longer-extant PDF. The LCRI’s Footnote 1 also allows you another option of not treating it as a reproduction at all, although the situation would need to be explained succinctly in any case. I suggest these alternatives mostly as a way to avoid deciding which actual "original" would properly be described in the body of the record created according to LCRI 1.11A, the paper original or the intervening PDF.


Extra Digits After the UPC

Question     Are the 2 digits following the UPC (e.g. 024 1 012236161578 $d 00) supposed to be transcribed? It is rarely recorded in the 024. If so, what is the purpose for it? Can it possibly aid in searching?

Answer     Yes, any additional codes should be transcribed in subfield $d, just as you have done. As to its purpose, generalizations can be difficult to make and judgment must be used in individual situations. As MARC21 defines the subfield $d of 024, these additional codes are often "provided to identify price, title, or issue information". While it is not altogether clear what the cited "00" might mean, I figure that if the publisher included them, they must have considered the digits to have some meaning, however obscure. The same MARC21 definition refers to these as "optional digits", which certainly can lead to the interpretation that they may be omitted. Cataloging is an art, after all, and aesthetic considerations can be allowed to inform our cataloger’s judgment.

Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section

Last updated: December 28, 2004
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/dec04/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu