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

OLAC CATALOGER’S JUDGMENT
By Jay Weitz


Individual DVDs Re-released As a Set

Question: In cataloging an anniversary collection of Cirque Du Soleil DVDs as 12 individual titles rather than as a set, some dating issues have emerged. The DVD is of a live stage performance filmed over 3 days, then edited into the final version on the DVD. There are various copyright dates found: the one on the credits shows 2001, dates on the disc surface are 1999, 2001, 2003, and the one listed on the back of the container is 2005. Is it correct to consider this a new work and catalog it with a single date of 2005? Doing it this way would seem to call for notes indicating that the original stage production took place in 1999 and that the DVD was released in 2001. (The Cirque du Soleil Website confirms that the original stage production was in 1999.) The assumption is that 2005 is the date the set of DVDs was published, even though it is clear the individual titles were originally published earlier. The 2005 date on the container does specify that it is for the package design/artwork. However there is additional material found in this boxed set that does not appear to be in any of the other individually released DVDs of the same title. To add to the confusion, not all of the DVDs in the set seem to have been released separately. None of the other dates really seem to be acceptable as a publication date, so the package date is being used on the record as a presumed date of publication, which of course will be followed by a question mark and bracketed.

Answer: Seeing that the package design date is not explicitly a date of publication, but also that no other date is acceptable as a publication date, the package date can be used as a presumed date of publication, with a question mark and bracketed. If the DVDs were previously published separately, that information can be included in a note, with dates, if available. If the date(s) of original capture (when the performances were recorded) is available, that information could go into another note. In a case where the date(s) of the earlier separate DVD releases is known and the material is unchanged, the earliest of those dates would be given as Date 2 and coded in DtSt as "r". In a case where that information is not known, but the date(s) of original capture is known and the material is unchanged from the original, the earliest of those dates would be given as Date 2 and coded in DtSt as "p". For this case, however, in determining that there have been changes in content (special features, somewhat edited/changed from the original release) from any earlier releases, this must be considered new material, and therefore DtSt may be given as "s".

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Dates of Package Design

Question: For a DVD with a copyright date of 2004, there is also a newer copyright date associated with its packaging/artwork. There is a record for the 2004 copy (with all the other data being the same, such as widescreen edition and publisher). Assuming that the newer date represents a "printing", then no new record needs to be created for it, right? If this is correct and the record for the 2004 date is used, then how would the copy cataloging be handled? Would the 2005 date be added to the record at all, and if so, where? Or would the 2005 just be ignored completely?

Answer: In most cases, it is best to simply ignore any date that is explicitly identified as referring to package design. Think of it as analogous to ignoring the change of cover art every time a paperback is reprinted.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

"Foreign Films" Versus "Foreign Language Films"

Question: What is the difference between using the subject headings "Foreign films" and "Foreign language films"? Can they both be used for the same item? The definition also mentions "export" market. Would that be "export" from the United States or "export" from the country of origin?

Answer: Here are excerpts from the respective LCSH scope notes for the two headings. To be perfectly honest, I have never been able to fully figure out the distinction that is trying to be made here. The best I have been able to come up with is this. "Foreign films" seems to cover works about motion pictures produced in countries other than that of the cataloging agency. So for instance, for someone cataloging in the United States, a book about films produced in France would qualify. "Foreign language films" seems to cover works about motion pictures that are in a language other than the majority language of the country of the cataloging agency, but are produced in that country for markets outside that country. So for instance, for someone cataloging in the United States, a book about Spanish language films made in the United States and intended for non-United States markets would qualify. There is no further help in the Subject Cataloging Manual. For a more definitive answer, this question might better be addressed to LC’s Cataloging Policy and Support Office <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/queries.html>.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Uniform Title Qualifiers for Videos

Question: In cataloging a CD which contains music from three videorecordings, uniform titles to link the videos and CD together need to be constructed. The films have been released only as videorecordings, so the "Motion picture" qualifier does not seem quite right. What should the standard qualifier for such a video title be?

Answer: According to LCRI 25.5B Appendix I, on uniform titles for motion pictures, television programs, and the like:
"If a resource has been distributed theatrically, nontheatrically, as a home video, and/or aired on television, use the qualifier applicable to the original distribution. When the original distribution is unknown, cannot be determined, or is not applicable (e.g., undistributed home movies), use the qualifier "(Motion picture)". Use the qualifier "(Motion picture)" when the original distribution is directly to the home video market. Use the qualifier "(Television program)" for those resources originally aired on television whether or not they have subsequent home video releases".
If these resources were released directly to home video, "(Motion picture)" is the correct qualifier.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Uniform Titles for Videos and Their Related Works

Question: Here are a couple of related questions about uniform titles for you.
  1. In creating uniform titles for several DVDs of Jane Austen works first aired as BBC television mini-series, it appears that the qualifier should be "(Television program)" and not "(Motion picture)". Is this correct?
  2. While scanning through other uniform titles in the database, some puzzling constructions were found. Here are a few of them:
How can these possibly be correct?

Answer: To answer the first question, since the Austen DVDs were originally created for TV, the correct qualifier is "(Television program)". Regarding the second question, when looking at uniform titles for what might loosely be called related expressions of existing literary works, it is important to remember that these are related works, but by no means the same work. So a film or TV series based on a novel by Austen or a play of Shakespeare has its own title, depending upon what the creators of that film or TV series called it. This title may, in some cases, look the same as the title of the original literary work, but it may be--and often is--different. As a way of explaining the puzzling uniform titles, the title screens (etc.) of the 2005 film of Austen’s "Pride and Prejudice" presumably read "Pride & Prejudice", so that is the basis of that film’s uniform title. And, the title screen of that 1999 film of "Midsummer Night’s Dream" presumably read "William Shakespeare’s A midsummer night’s dream", so that is the basis of that film’s uniform title. There should also be related work added entries in both of those cases to reflect the name/uniform title of the original, using "Austen, Jane, $d 1775-1817. $t Pride and prejudice" (n2002041181) in the case of the Austen and using "Shakespeare, William, $d 1564-1616. $t Midsummer night’s dream" (n79151243) in the case of the Shakespeare. Those are the headings for the novel and play, respectively, not for any filmed version.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Subfield $4 Relator Codes and Subfield $e Relator Terms

Question: What are the issues about the choice of subfield $4 (relator code) versus subfield $e (relator term) indications for the illustrator of a book? Some local systems will display the subfield $4 code as the full word after the name heading (e.g., Smith, John, illustrator), while the subfield $e term only displays with the abbreviation (e.g., Smith, John, ill.). In those cases (with an obliging local system), it would seem to be better to use the subfield $4 code so that the full word would show, especially for children’s picture books. Both OCLC’s Bibliographic Formats and Standards and your book on MARC coding appear to be saying that either choice could be made. This question is just to check to make sure that there is not some kind of unwritten accepted practice--that illustrators must be designated in the subfield $e only--that needs to be followed.

Answer: The question of a "choice" between the use of subfield $4 and subfield $e is a false one. Here is the story. AACR2 allows the optional use of relator terms (officially called, "Designations of function", the abbreviations that go in subfield $e) in only four cases according to 21.0D1: compiler (comp.), editor (ed.), illustrator (ill.), and translator (tr.), with occasional other terms that may be called for in specific rules. AACR2 also allows for the use of other terms derived from standard lists in specialist and archival cataloging. LCRI 21.0D1 further limits the use of these abbreviations to "ill". alone, for illustrators of children’s materials. So in general, unless cataloging children’s materials, catalogers should not be using subfield $e or these terms in headings. (Please note that these relator terms should not be confused with additions to personal name headings that serve as points of differentiation--such as terms of honor, terms of address, designations of sainthood or royalty, etc.--as are called for in Rules 22.12 through 22.16 and elsewhere, and which usually go in subfield $c.) On the other hand, relator codes (subfield $4) may optionally be used wherever appropriate, even in cases where a subfield $e has legitimately been used, such as in the cataloging of children’s materials. In summing up the options, if cataloging illustrated children’s materials, there are four possibilities: 1) the AACR2 relator term "ill." may be added in subfield $e of the heading for the illustrator, 2) the relator code "ill" may be added in subfield $4, 3) both may be included, 4) both may be omitted.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Relator Codes in Name/Title Added Entries

Question: The public services staff at our institution has been keen to beef up records with relator codes so that names in the records show up in the catalog with information on how they contributed to the resource. So the media catalogers now routinely enhance records by adding every subfield $4 relator code that is relevant. This includes the "cmp" code for composer, which they are adding not only to 100 and 700 personal name headings but to 700 fields with subfield $t name/title headings. The sound recordings cataloger does not believe this is an appropriate use of the relator code, since the 700 subfield $t heading refers to a work and not a person. Whether appropriate or not, the code is doing the intended job in the catalog. As an example, the following string yields a link for "Hector Berlioz (Composer)" in the catalog:

          700 12 Berlioz, Hector, $d 1803-1869. $t Symphonie fantastique. $4 cmp

In searching the OCLC documentation for something either condoning or condemning this use of the relator code with name/title headings, nothing appears. Do you happen to know whether this is common practice? The media catalogers say they also use it for related works, such as the following on the record for the film version of the novel:

          700 1   Austen, Jane, $d 1775-1817. $t Mansfield Park. $4 aut

What do you think?

Answer: The answer to this question seems to be strongly implied by the final sentence of the first paragraph of the definition of subfield $4 as found in MARC 21’s X00, X10, and X11 field descriptions: "The code is given after the name portion in name/title fields". My inference from that statement is that a relator code is perfectly proper in a name/title field such as a 700. However, according to the guidance, it should be placed correctly as follows:

          700 12 Berlioz, Hector, $d 1803-1869. $4 cmp $t Symphonie fantastique.

          700 1   Austen, Jane, $d 1775-1817. $4 aut $t Mansfield Park.

After a bit of searching, I even found a MARC 21 example of this, although it is in the 800 field (final example):

          490 1   Louie Armstrong ; $v 6.
          800 1   Armstrong, Louis, $d 1900-1971. $4 prf $t Louie Armstrong (Universal City Studios) ; $v 6.

That probably looks as funny to others as it does to me, but there it is in MARC 21 black and white. And if I were a betting man--which I am not--I would wager that almost no one does it that way.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Double-Sided DVD

Question: How should a DVD with different contents on each side be cataloged? In this case, the contents on the first side were produced in 2004 and the contents on the second side were produced in 2005. The container has a collective title ("Clean Technologies - Technologies propres"). Side 1 has the title, "Clean Technologies" and side 2 has the title, "Clean Technologies 2". Could you give guidance on the following questions?
      (1) Should the later date only be used or would both dates be coded?
      (2) Should the running times for each side be included with the total recorded in the 008 and 300 or should the running time for just the first side be recorded?
      (3) Where should the information about each side having different contents be recorded--in a 500, a 505, or a 538? The examples in "Guide to Cataloging DVDs Using AACR2r Chapters 7 and 9" do not appear to speak to this particular situation.
      (4) For purposes of clarifying, this contents note is being constructed for the bibliographic record:
[Side 1]. Methane hydrates -- Flaring efficiency -- Flexible solar panels -- R-2000 -- [Side 2]. Hydrogen fuel cells -- Wind power -- Biodiesel -- CO2 capture and storage.
Answer: (1) Because a two-sided single-disc resource is being cataloged, it would seem to make sense to consider the later date as the date of publication. Depending upon the particular circumstances of the publication (for instance, if there is an earlier publication of the first side alone), that earlier date may be accounted for, as well. At the very least, a note explaining the dates situation would be prudent.
(2) If a total duration is going to be included (AACR2 1.5B4 and 7.5B2), it should include both sides.
(3) and (4) If the structure of the contents lends itself to a chapter-title-like list (as seems to be the case, judging from Question 4), creating a 505 Contents Note would make sense. The note above looks fine to me. Contents would never be listed in field 538, although noting that the disc is double-sided (plus any other related technical details) would go in that field.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

DVD-Audio

Question: In OCLC’s Bibliographic Formats and Standards, catalogers are told to catalog DVD-Audios (DVD-A) as sound recordings. Aside from the 500 note, is there anything more needed on the record to indicate that it is a DVD? Where can information be found on how to catalog these?

Answer: Joe Bartl, of Library of Congress (with some input from me, among others), has recently put together a set of "New Format Guidelines" that he is hoping will eventually appear in some form as an LCRI. He has given me permission to share some of that information in the meantime. Here are the relevant portions.

DVD-Audio Definition: DVD-Audio (DVD-A) is a Digital Versatile Disc format, developed by Panasonic, that is specifically designed to hold audio data, and particularly, high-quality sound. The DVD Forum, consisting of 230 leading companies worldwide, released the final DVD-A specification in March of 1999. This DVD format is said to provide at least twice the sound quality of standard audio CDs and may contain up to seven times as much information. Various types of DVD-A-compatible DVD players are being manufactured, in addition to the DVD-A players specifically developed for the format.

Leader:   Type "i" or "j" as appropriate
007:       /03 = "z"
245:       GMD = [sound recording]
300:       $a 1 sound disc : $b digital, DVD ; $c 4 ¾ in.
538:       $a [quote system requirements if present; if not present, provide no note]

If I may add my own small refinement, I would suggest always including a 538 beginning with "DVD-Audio" (or a quoted alternative), followed by any relevant system requirements.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Color System and Regional Information as Defaults

Question: At our institution, both NTSC and Region 1 are treated as defaults, so that information is not recorded in the bibliographic record. However, if the item is a region or system other than these defaults, that information is recorded in the 538 field. Should all color system and region information be included in records, without treating NTSC and Region 1 as presumed defaults?

Answer: Many United States institutions do acquire only NTSC and Region 1 videos, as is understandable, and therefore leave that "default" information out of their bibliographic records. This practice is perfectly acceptable and catalogers should not feel obligated to add either. However, in a widely used database such as WorldCat, to which institutions from all over the world contribute, it is more internationally friendly to include that information. For that reason, I would encourage people to do so if they have the inclination. One easy way to include that information, without too much extra work on anyone’s part, is to create either a template ("constant data" in Connexion) or text string 538 field with the "default" information that could be input with the touch of a key or two. But again, this is certainly not required.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

DVD Durations

Question: Could you clarify or point to an AACR2R rule to explain what duration to use in the 300 subfield $a when there is a time given for the feature film, as well as a time for the entire DVD, including bonus features? The case in point is a DVD with two times given on the packaging: 78 min/86 min. One of those times represents the running time for the full screen theatrical version and the other is for the widescreen extended version. Which one of these should go in the 300 subfield $a? And what should be done with the other time--should it be put in a note?

Answer: In a case such as this, it might be better to omit the duration from the 300 field, but to include each duration in the context of explaining the presence of the two alternative versions of the feature film (in a contents note or other note, as is appropriate to the circumstance).

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

MARC 21’s Definition of "Representational" Files

Question: What is the appropriate use of File (Type of Computer File) code "c" for "Representational"? In OCLC’s Bibliographic Formats and Standards (BF&S), the application guidance reads: "Files that have pictorial or graphic data. The pictorial and graphic data can be manipulated in conjunction with other types of files to produce graphic patterns, which can be used to interpret and give meaning to the information". While this would appear to include the type of graphical data (such as architectural drawings) that can be manipulated, it does not seem to include still images that cannot be manipulated by computer. So, there does not seem to be an appropriate code for an integrating database of digital still images. Any assistance or insight you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Answer: BF&S is a slight re-wording of the text in MARC 21 ("Code c indicates an electronic resource that contains pictorial graphic data that can be manipulated in conjunction with other types of files to produce graphic patterns that can be used to interpret and give meaning to the information. It does not include a document in image format."). Still, the essence of the guidance is the same. My guess is that this is one of those definitions that has not been seriously reconsidered in the more than twenty years since the original "Machine-Readable Data Files" format was implemented. In fact, going back to the MARC of 1984, it reads more or less the same, except that the current second sentence was added somewhere along the line. Of course, the world of digital imagery has changed a lot, even if this definition has not. This is a case where catalogers have to update the definition in their own heads--regardless of its literal outdatedness--and apply it to the world as it is now, including all current still and moving images. In a sense, though, many (all?) digital still images can now be manipulated by things such as Photoshop, correct? Perhaps suggesting such updates to MARC 21 is a job for OLAC.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Presentation Format as Edition Statement or Note

Question: It is so confusing to decide where data such as widescreen, full screen, letterboxed, etc. should be put. As it stands now, if both versions of the DVD have been produced (widescreen and full screen), catalogers put the information in the record as an edition statement (MARC 250). If only one version has been made, the information is entered in the 538 field only. If this information is given prominently on the container or label, it is also entered into the 250 field. Perhaps this information should be standardized and always be entered as an edition statement. If that were the case, would it need to be repeated in the 538 field?

Answer: Where the information about the presentation format of a video is put in a record depends largely upon how it is presented on the resource itself. If it appears as an edition (or edition-like) statement, use the 250 field, especially if such a statement would be the main way of differentiating one manifestation from another separately published manifestation in a different presentation format. If it does not appear as an edition statement, and in cases where multiple presentation formats are found on the same disc, it is often better to include the information in Field 538 (or even a contents note, if that makes more sense). Regardless of where the information is included in the record, it does not need to be repeated, unless such repetition helps to clarify the situation.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Inventing Region and Sound Information

Question: If a video does not give a region code or a type of sound, the practice at our institution is to default to "Region 1" and "Dolby Digital" (and code the 007 subfield $i as "q"). Is this correct or should the information just be left out of the record if no information is given?

Answer: If the resource does not mention region and/or sound information, it is best not to invent them.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

"Anamorphic" DVDs?

Question: Many catalogers are entering the designation "anamorphic" in the 538 field, along with "widescreen" and the aspect ratio (for instance, "DVD, region 1, anamorphic widescreen (1.78:1) presentation; Dolby Digital"). Other catalogers are leaving out "anamorphic" altogether. Should this information be entered in subfield $b of the 300 field, as 7.5C2 suggests?

Answer: What to do with "anamorphic" is open to interpretation. AACR2 7.5C2 begins with the phrase: "If a film has special projection requirements ...". As I understand things, these "special projection requirements" will not ordinarily apply to DVDs, but are generally limited to the projection of actual celluloid film (in the case of "anamorphic", the kind of projector and lenses that are used). For most DVDs and other videorecordings, where these projection requirements are not an issue, I think this information can be included in 538 as a detail of the original film.

Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section

Last updated: December 21, 2006
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/dec06/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu