OLAC CATALOGER'S JUDGMENT
Jay Weitz
We Like Ike, But We're Hanging Him
Question: Our institution wants a framed text with a Dwight D. Eisenhower quote on it to be cataloged before it is hung. But cataloging it does not seem easily done. It is a quotation, not a picture, and appears to be a poster that was framed locally. There are no illustrations of any kind. It is exists strictly of a statement, set exclusively in capital letters, by Dwight D. Eisenhower, from a letter he wrote to the American Library Association's Annual Conference, Los Angeles, 1953. The best guess about it is that it was an ALA poster that someone had framed, then donated to the library to be hung with other statements of the same type (which, fortunately, do not have to be cataloged). The text reads, "The libraries of America are and must ever remain the home of the free, inquiring minds. To them, our citizens--of all ages and races, of all creeds and political persuasions--must ever be able to turn with clear confidences that there they can freely seek the whole truth, unwarped by fashion and uncompromised by expediency". It is completely typeset; it has no handwritten signature or anything else. The type is black and printed on cream-colored paper. It is 8 x 10 inches, matted and framed to 16 1/2 x 13 5/8 inches. The record will be cataloged in the national database, so it is really important to get it right.
Answer: My inclination would be to catalog it as any other poster (Type "k", TMat "i"), following 8.5D4 for the unframed dimensions and 8.7B10 for the details and size of the frame. Following OCLC's augmentation of LCRI 1.1C (in BFAS 2.1, "GMDs and Library of Congress Rule Interpretations"), I would probably use the GMD "[picture]", as incongruous as that sounds, although one could also argue that omitting a GMD all together makes as much sense.
A Six-DVD Set With Changing Publisher
Question: The six-DVD set of the "Rocky" movies is posing a slight dilemma for cataloging. The first five "Rocky" movies were all put out by Fox, but the sixth, "Rocky Balboa", is a Columbia title. Fox is publishing the set, and it includes that sixth title. How would this be cataloged as a set when the last DVD has a publisher different from the first five?
Answer: According to AACR2 1.0A2(b)(i), for a multipart monograph such as this, the description would be based on the first or earliest part. The cataloger would simply include a note stating that the sixth volume is published by a different entity. (For videorecordings, it would probably be a good idea to trace that entity in addition to the publisher of the first five volumes).
Adjusting Motion Picture Uniform Titles
Question: This is a question about LCRI 25.5B Appendix I concerning motion picture uniform titles established for related work or subject access. The "PCC/LC Practice for Assigning Uniform Titles (Providing Related Work/Subject Access When Cataloging Any Resource Related to a Motion Picture)" explains how to establish a uniform title to be used as a 730 related work added entry or subject heading for a work about or related to the motion picture, as well as how to establish it with a qualifier (such as "Red Pony (Motion picture : 1949)") if it conflicts with the title of another resource. However, no mention is made about adjusting the heading in the 130 field on records for the actual motion picture. This is in contrast to the old LCRI 25.5B (before it was revised), which says in parentheses, "Existing records in which the motion picture is used as a main or secondary entry must be adjusted", and gives an example where "Red pony (Motion picture)" was established to be used as an added entry on a new work about the film, and added also as a main entry in the 130 field on a record for the actual film. However, this instruction has been dropped from Appendix I. The only place in Appendix I where it mentions adjusting headings on existing records appears to be for a different situation ("Same title, different resources"), when a uniform title is assigned to distinguish a motion picture from another resource entered under that same title. However, this instruction no longer exists for situations where a uniform title is assigned for works that are related to or about a motion picture. Is there a reason why the instruction was dropped, or should catalogers continue adjusting the main entries of records for the motion picture when a uniform title is established to provide related work/subject access? When enhancing records, I have also been adding 130 fields if the motion picture title has been established, and find that related work/subject access tends to be a more common reason for these headings.
Answer: This is merely a guess (since it would need to be verified with LC), but it might have something to do with the LCRI's general preference for using an existing heading unless a change is necessary. This preference regarding the cataloging of the motion picture itself is stated in Footnote 1. For secondary access, it is stated in Footnote 2. (In the print version of LCRI 25.5B Appendix I, the footnotes appear respectively on the bottom of Page 3 [dated April 2005] and Pages 10-11 [dated August 2006]. In the Cataloger's Desktop version, the two section headings "PCC Practice for Assigning Uniform Titles (Cataloging a Motion Picture Itself)" and "PCC/LC Practice for Assigning Uniform Titles (Providing Related Work/Subject Access When Cataloging Any Resource Related to a Motion Picture)" are both hot links. Click on each and the respective footnote comes up in a box [although online, they are no longer labeled or identified as footnotes the way they are in print].) It notes that the old guidelines sometimes called for qualifications that would no longer be required under the new guidelines, but that catalogers should "...continue to use such headings in main, subject, and added entries". It is also useful to remember that LC does not use AACR2 to catalog moving images (it uses AMIM instead), so catalogers there are not bound by the LCRI. There may also have been some consideration about limiting the burden of extra work for PCC participants by not requiring them to go back and adjust headings on existing cataloging. This is not meant to stop anyone from doing that additional work, it simply does not mandate that they must. Again, these are just my guesses.
Genre Heading for Nonfiction Films
Question: For "Films for the hearing impaired", what genre term should catalogers be using for a nonfiction (educational, instructional, exercise) item, an item not previously/originally released on television? It seems as if the term "films" in this case would refer to the way in which the item was originally captured (i.e., celluloid, digital, camcorder tape), that is, not meaning only "motion picture". What is your take on this situation? Is there a better term that catalogers should be using for these closed-captioned nonfiction items? If so, what would you suggest?
Answer: According to the draft of LC's Subject Cataloging Manual H 1913 "Moving Image Genre/Form Headings" <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/h1913.pdf>: "As used in this instruction sheet and in the genre/form headings themselves, the term ‘films' refers to works that are originally recorded and released on motion picture film, on video, or digitally. The phrase, ‘television programs', refers to those works that are originally telecast". The genre/form heading "Films for the hearing impaired" is intended to cover both fiction and nonfiction moving images captured on film, video, or digitally.
Explicit Edition Statements, So to Speak
Question: How are libraries handling CDs that have explicit lyrics or themes? For instance, between the uncut and the edited versions of Kanye West's CD Late registration, there is nothing on either CD to indicate which one is the version the artist intended. The only statement that differentiates between the two is the "Parental Advisory Explicit Content" icon on the uncut version. Is this enough to justify a 250 "Explicit version"? Of course, according to AACR2 1.2B4, that phrase could be added to the 245 in brackets, but the 250 seems preferable, if possible. Any advice would be helpful.
Answer: AACR2 6.2B3, 1.2B4, and their respective LCRIs appear to be tailor-made for such circumstances as the "explicit" version versus the "clean" version of sound recordings, the records for which "...would otherwise show exactly the same information in the areas beginning with the title and statement of responsibility area and ending with the series area" (LC practice as stated in LCRI 1.2B4; in many or even most cases, the publisher numbers and/or standard numbers will differ, but they lie outside the areas stipulated in the LCRI). When the resource itself does not present something that can be construed as an intelligible edition statement, the cataloger may supply one in brackets (in Field 250 and in the language and script of the title proper). Following 1.2B4 to the letter, one would supply such an edition statement only in cases where both "explicit" and "clean" versions were known to exist, although such knowledge is not always possible. If there is information on the resource that explains the situation but was not deemed suitable as the edition statement (such as a "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content" statement), that could still be appropriate as a quoted note. Ideally, catalogers would strive for consistency in any supplied edition statements, though that does not seem likely. Most of the terms that come to mind in this context (for example, "explicit", "uncensored", "clean", "censored") seem value-laden. But then again, the very issue of altering or not altering artistic intent is value-laden, so perhaps it is unavoidable.
Terms in Common, and Uncommon, Usage
Question: This is a question about the 300 tag in video games. For a Nintendo or a PlayStation video game, it would seem that a better term for the 300 tag would be "computer optical disc" rather than what is normally used for electronic resources, i.e., "CD-ROM" or "DVD-ROM". Is this what the consensus is? In looking through OLAC Newsletters and other sources, there do not appear to be any examples specific to video games not played on a computer.
Answer: If the specific material designation of "computer optical disc" applies to the resource, AACR2 9.5B1 absolutely allows its use. Such so-called "terms in common usage" as "CD-ROM" and "DVD-ROM" are mere options under 9.5B1. LCRI 9.5B1, which prefers the "terms in common usage", is labeled "LC practice" and although many (if not most) institutions have chosen to follow LC's lead in this regard, catalogers may choose otherwise. As always when making this kind of local decision, it is a good idea to document such choices, as well as the rationale for them.
Languages of Subtitles in 041
Question: In a discussion about coding the 041 field for DVDs, I was surprised to find that my opinion was in the minority. I was under the impression that if the main languages and the subtitles were the same (e.g., English, French, and Spanish), catalogers did not need to add a subfield $b. Then, if any of the subtitle languages differed from any of the main dialogue languages listed in subfield $a, catalogers would code only for the different languages in subfield $b. For example, for a DVD in English and French, with subtitles in English, French, and Spanish, only "spa" would be coded in subfield $b. Unfortunately, documentation for my version of this practice cannot be located in Bibliographic Formats and Standards or the Technical Bulletins. My colleagues claimed that this is the old way; the rules have since changed and now all languages must be coded. Which way is correct?
Answer: As the MARC format is currently worded (the current version of its guidance for Field 041 is from MARC 21 Update 6, dated October 2005), catalogers are supposed to include in subfields $b only those Language Codes that are not represented in subfields $a: "Subfield $b contains the codes for languages of summaries, abstracts, subtitles or captions (open or closed, intended for users with hearing disabilities) when the language is other than that of the text" (emphasis mine). However, the 041 field is currently in flux as a result of "MARC Proposal 2007-01" <http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-01.html>. This proposal redefines subfield $b for summaries and abstracts only and creates a new subfield $j for subtitles and captions. The exact wording of any of the changes will not be known until the MARC 21 Update 8 is published. (Update 8 will carry the date of October 2007, but if tradition prevails, it will not actually be made available by LC until six, or seven, or eight months later, which would be around April to June 2008. That would mean that it would be implemented by OCLC probably around April to June 2009.) Although it is not completely certain that the new wording will work out this way, it is my hope that the languages of all subtitles and captions (not only those that differ from the original text) will be recorded in the new subfield $j.
Field 041 Subfield $h Following Subfield $b
Question: The use of subfield $h in Visual Materials format records appears to be going against the guidance. Lately, more often than not, subfield $h follows strings that include both subfields $a and $b. As an example: for a Spanish DVD, with optional English or French subtitles, the 041 appears like this:
- 041 1 spa $b eng $b fre $h spa
According to the 041 instructions, subfield $h cannot follow subfield $b. Still, this construction seems perfectly logical. What do you think?
Answer: As I read the current version (dated October 2005) of Field 041 in MARC 21, I find no explicit prohibition of subfield $h following subfield $b, although neither of the subfield $b examples includes a subfield $h. Catalogers should not read too much into examples, which are usually OK as far as they go, but are not meant to be definitive or complete in many cases. As the introduction to MARC 21 Bibliographic states, "The examples illustrate the application of specific MARC content designation. The data may be fuller or less full than would be used in actual cataloging practice" (emphasis mine). Historically, there have been several unfortunate conflicts built into subfield $b, which has been used both for summaries/abstracts and for subtitles/captions. Those two different uses are not necessarily compatible. For the summaries/abstracts use of subfield $b, one can question the need for coding subfield $h for the "original" language at all. After all, the summary or abstract does not have to be a translation of anything. If summaries or abstracts in multiple languages are present, determining that one or another was the "original" language may well be impossible (and could be totally unrelated to the original language of the main text). The subtitles/captions use of subfield $b, however, sure feels to me as though an accompanying subfield $h would often be appropriate. Traditional subtitles are often translations, albeit sometimes condensed, rather than word-for-word. Traditional captioning (for the hearing impaired) often does not involve translation, tending to be mere transcription of the audio in the same language. With DVDs especially, though, the possibilities are endless and the 041 coding often incredibly complex. However, as noted in the previous answer, the whole state of Field 041 is subject to change with the implementation of "MARC Proposal 2007-01".
Question: Should there or should there not be a 007 tag for three-dimensional artifacts and realia? Some of the guidance says that catalogers should add a Field 007 (usually a $a = k for non-projected graphic), but other guidance indicates that no 007 tag needs to be added. There are numerous examples of records for this material showing both ways, with and without an 007. In general, there seems to be quite a lot of angst about the 007, for whatever reason. Some say that if an item is not purely paper or print (monograph or serial), then it probably should have a Field 007. However, this may not apply with realia. What do you say?
Answer: MARC 21 has defined a Field 007 for "Unspecified" (007/00 is coded "z"), but OCLC has chosen not to implement it. In OCLC, three-dimensional objects and realia would not have a Field 007.
Question: Why does AACR2 make such an issue over distinguishing realia from replicas in its definition of "realia" ("An artefact or naturally occurring entity, as opposed to a replica")? For instance, with a replica of a dinosaur bone, a cataloger would still use Chapter 10 to catalog the replica. It still is a three-dimensional object. It is just not clear why there is such a distinction between three-dimensional objects and realia. Why was Chapter 10 not called, "Three-dimensional objects"? If you could shed any light on this at all, it would be very helpful.
Answer: As AACR2 Rule 10.0A1 states in part, that Chapter 10 covers "...the description of three-dimensional objects of all kinds (other than those covered in previous chapters)". The glossary defines "artefact" as: "Any object made or modified by one or more persons". It defines "object" as: "A three-dimensional artefact (or replica of an artefact) or a naturally occurring entity". Finally, it defines "realia" as: "An artefact or naturally occurring entity, as opposed to a replica". It is rarely helpful when such definitions trade-off using each other as parts of their definitions, but this is an unavoidable limitation of language. The intention of Chapter 10 was to cover everything else that could not easily fit into the other chapters. This has to include a whole bunch of things: things that could be considered at least possibly semi-bibliographical (such as educational models and replicas and other sorts of educational materials); things that are human made but were not originally intended as bibliographical objects (such as clothing, machines, kitchen utensils, sculptures, and so on); things that are not human made (such as rocks, leaves, and so on). In an AACR2 context, the most important distinction made in the "realia" definition between the "real" and the "replica" might be that the "replica" would be human made, and so be expected to have a publisher/manufacturer, a place of publication/manufacture, and a date of publication/manufacture, whereas a naturally occurring entity would not. An artefact in the AACR2 sense straddles those two worlds in that it is human made, but any details of manufacture may or may not be known (or even be knowable in many cases). These distinctions become important mainly in AACR2 10.4, where catalogers generally do not provide a place, publisher, or date (not even "s.l". and "s.n".) for naturally occurring entities; but generally do try to provide a place, publisher, and date (even if it is "s.l". and "s.n".) for things that are published, such as replicas. Again, the human-made artefacts are in the middle, depending upon whether they were "intended primarily for communication" (Rules 10.4C2, 10.4D2, 10.4F2). So, a replica of a dinosaur bone would be cataloged according to Chapter 10, but because it is known to be a replica, its publisher/manufacturer, place, and date may be known, and would be recorded in the 260 field. Had it been an actual dinosaur bone (one not "mounted for viewing or packaged for presentation", according to Rules 10.4C2, 10.4D2, and 10.4F2), there would not even be a 260 field, since "Publication, Distribution, Etc". is not an issue in this case.
Same Event, Different Video Perspectives
Question: In cataloging locally-produced videorecordings of university events for the university archives, several cases have arisen where there are two videocassettes that record the same event, but from different cameras. For example, one copy will be from a stationary camera focusing on the speakers, while the other copy will be from a roving camera which provides changing angles on the speakers as well as views of the audience. Should these be cataloged on one bibliographic record or two? One argument is that the event itself is exactly the same on both copies, so there should be one bibliographic record with notes explaining the differences in the copies. Another argument is that the different visual content justifies a second record, analogous to what is done for widescreen vs. full screen DVD formats.
Answer: A cataloger could legitimately treat such cases in either fashion, depending upon what better suits the situation and users. When the option to create a single bibliographic record is chosen, the cataloger could describe the differences between the two versions of the videorecording in an informal contents note (500) or in a formal contents note (505). When the formal contents note route is taken, it might be necessary to supply bracketed titles that would clarify the differences, unless there are such titles already on the resources that can be used. In choosing to create separate records, probably the best way to differentiate the otherwise similar or identical descriptions would be through (again presumably supplied) edition statements that clarified the differences.
Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section
Last updated: February 2, 2008
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/dec07/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu