AACR2 EXAMPLES FOR CATALOGING COMPUTER SOFTWARE FORTHCOMING
MEDICAL AUDIOVISUALS IN NORTHEASTERN OHIO
USER GROUP LEADERS APPEAR BEFORE USERS COUNCIL
CIP AND AV : A Report with Commentary
GRAPHIC MATERIALS RULES PUBLISHED
I've got to get away from this desk so I can buy a beer and thereby have something appropriate to cry into. As you might have guessed, I've just finished updating my OCLC AV format with the revision pages issued in October. Despair is too strong a term to use, but it isn't far off. The sound recordings and microform, 007 have been added to the AV format. So, in case you have a kit with a sound disc that does not accompany a principal AV media but is of such astonishing importance that it must be machine retrievable, this is your lucky day. If, on the other hand, you had just gotten comfortable with coding scripts in the accompanying matter area of the fixed field, your ship has come in. Unfortunately, it docked in the wrong port. We are coolly informed that code "m" is a code "used primarily in archival cataloging". But, as luck would have it, the world is still safe for democracy. We can now catalog a photo-reproduction of a videocassette (533).
The problem is, this really isn't a very funny topic. I see the formats become more complex, the applications more obscure, and a whole lot of AV catalogers more frustrated. I've seen the initial proposed additions to the MARC format for two and three dimensional materials. Frankly friends, you ain't seen nothing yet.
I teach workshops for Solinet. At these workshops I sometimes see savy, experienced catalogers, fearful and intimidated by a format which often says too little and asks too much.
In WWII (The Big One) they asked: "Is this trip necessary?" If it weren't necessary, you were to stay home save the gas. I think it is time for folks to ask themselves: "Is this field necessary?" Coding all these wonderful fields (043, 033, 045, 007) takes time and consequently money.
Many of these fields are designed to serve sophisticated retrieval combos. My question to you is this: where is the sophisticated patron who is going to use these retrieval codes? Is it the same one who can't remember how to do the on-line title search you taught him last week?
I realize many of these optional fields are designed by and intended for archival collections. What is needed is clearer guidance in the formats as to what fields are appropriate for what type of collection. Print the pages for archival use in red or something.
The networks need to examine who their members are when they design their formats. The formats should provide the best guidance possible to the largest group of users. I may be wrong, but I'd guess the majority of on-line audiovisual catalogers are not cataloging for one of a kind, historically significant collections. Explanations taken out of the Marc formats used at LC are not always appropriate or helpful for network catalogers. LC is archival. That means its needs and consequently its format explanations will be different from those needed to help non-specialist catalogers. LC doesn't collect a vast variety of the AV which is available. So if the networks rely on published LC changes to the MARC format before adapting their format, the format will always lag behind the needs of the on-line users. LC and the networks are wondrous institutions, but it is extremely urgent that the AV format become more usable.
Most of all, we need to remember that everything possible should be done to encourage libraries and other agencies to catalog their media on-line. Making the formats less complex is an excellent way to encourage on-line cataloging of AV.
Well, the beer's gone flat and it's time to go home. Just in case everyone does not immediately reform and start following my party line in the next three months, look for an article in the March issue whose topic will be how to apply the new 007 guidelines. As always mail contributions, questions, requests, and comments to: Verna Urbanski, Editor, On-line Audiovisual Catalogers Newsletter, Thomas G. Carpenter Library, University of North Florida, Box 17605, Jacksonville, Florida 32245-7605 (P.S.--One bright spot. We now have official guidance to not use second indicator 3 in 7XX fields.)
Nancy Olson, OCLC Visiting Scholar, has confirmed that she is preparing a manual of examples for how to catalog micro-computer software and videogames. The examples will be based on Chapter 9 of AACR2 and will be published by Soldier Creek Press of Lake Crystal, Minnesota, as part of their fine series of training manuals produced by Minnesota librarians. The volume, titled A Manual of AACR2 Examples for Micro-computer Software and Video Game, is expected to be published in December. Price: $7.00.
Soldier Creek Press will also soon be publishing a manual of examples for technical reports. Edward Swanson (Minnesota Historical Society) is preparing the volume. Title: A Manual of AACR2 Examples for Technical Reports. Price: $7.00. Expected publication: March, 1983. Inquires regarding these publications should be directed to: Soldier Creek Press, P. 0. Box 863, Lake Crystal, Minnesota 56055.
On-Line Audiovisual Catalogers will hold their midwinter meeting January 8th, from 8-10 p.m. There will be no program meeting but anyone with specific questions about AV could probably find many willing to help them. One order of business will be the counting of ballots on the by-laws changes.
Carolyn Frost Downes (University of Michigan) has written to say that RTSD AV will have a discussion group following their business meeting at Midwinter. The meeting will be Tuesday afternoon, January 11, from 2-4 p.m. The first hour will be the RTSD AV Committee meeting. The second hour promises to be an exciting look at: "AACR 2 manuals for audiovisual materials. Included will be the recently-published manuals for cartographic materials and graphic materials, as well as the manuals written by three of our committee members: Nancy Olson, JoAnn Rogers, and myself. The discussion will look at the scope of each manual, special features, suggested use, etc."
RTSD Cataloging and Classification Section, Cataloging Committee: Description and Access (CC:DA) will meet Friday, January 7, 2-5:30 p.m. and January 8, 9:30-11:00 a.m. and 2-5:30 p.m.
Check your schedules for place on these meetings. It sounds like a busy time. Attendees might also check out Marbi meetings. Though I've not seen an agenda, there is a very good chance they'll be talking about Marc format changes to accommodate two and three dimensional materials.
Have a good Midwinter session in beautiful San Antonio.
Enclosed in this issue of the Newsletter is a ballot for the first referendum to amend the bylaws. The topics addressed in the amendments are whether we should begin to elect our officers by mail ballot, and whether the immediate Past-Chairperson should be a voting member of the Executive Board for the year following the term as Chairperson.
I and the other offices strongly urge that all members in good standing (dues paid for calendar year 1982) exercise their right to vote on these amendments. Ballots will remain anonymous, but please do sign your name in the upper left hand corner of the envelope, above your return address. We need to hear from as many of you as possible to get a clear idea of the sentiments of the whole membership.
The amendments will be approved or rejected with a two-thirds vote of all those responding to the referendum. Please mail in your ballot by January 3, 1983, to Katha Massey, Secretary. The results will be tallied at our midwinter meeting in San Antonio, January 8, 1983.
For those of you who may still be considering submitting material for the Newsletter, we still would like to have it. All contributions are welcome. Please send typed, double spaced, proofread copy to Verna Urbanski.
Let us hear from you!
--Laurel Jizba
The next Newsletter will be the March issue, vol. 3, no. 1. Items should be submitted no later than February 1, 1983. Early submissions are greatly appreciated by the editor.
As was briefly reported in the last issue of the Newsletter, I was invited by OCLC to be their Visiting Scholar this year.
I began my work in the Office of Research at OCLC on October 12. I will be commuting in two week blocks between OCLC and Mankato State University, as well as attending ALA Midwinter and the ASIS and AECT annual meetings. I will be back at Mankato State full time after February 22.
I am working on several projects, and would appreciate input from AV catalogers and other interested parties on all of them. This is a report on the projects and their current status.
How this should be done, who should be involved, how and where policy/rule interpretations should he published, where catalogers should send questions -- these questions are all part of the policy problem. I'm discussing this with people at LC and at OCLC; who else should be involved?
Changes of any kind to AACR 2 can only be done through the ALA RTSD Cataloging and Classification Section, Cataloging Committee: Description and Access (CC:DA), which meets twice a year. This committee in turn makes recommendations to the Joint Steering Committee (JSC) of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. JSC may change the rules; the Library of Congress interprets the rules in the United States.
Rule interpretations are issued by the Library of Congress and published quarterly in the Cataloging Service Bulletin. Those affecting audiovisual materials are discussed in the OLAC Newsletter.
I question the current policy of the Library of Congress preparing and issuing rule interpretations concerning materials which they do not acquire or catalog. I am sometimes uncomfortable with their decisions, I suspect they are also.
We're stuck with AACR 2 chapter 9, but perhaps the work that Sue A. Dodd, University of North Carolina Social Science Data Library, and Ann Fox, audiovisual cataloger at the Library of Congress, are currently doing on microcomputer software will help with this problem. I'm planning to meet with them early in November.
Input into OCLC is a separate problem. The machine-readable data file (MRDF) format was approved in April of 1982 by MARBI, the joint committee in ALA of RTSD, LITA, and RASD for the representation in machine-readable form of bibliographic information. Current OCLC plans call for implementation no earlier than December of 1983. I need letters from all of you on this one.
I've purchased quite a few of these things and have taken several of them apart. Interesting. Perhaps an expansion of the definition of machine-readable data file will help. But where is the dividing line between MRDF and toy or game? The Atari, Odyssey, and Intellevision computer video games (game cartridges for these have the program stored on a chip) have educational cartridges and cartridges to teach programming, and cartridges that let you write and use programs.
Apple, Pet, and other microcomputers have programs on disc or, cassettes or cartridges; most of these also have game software packages.
What about the children's books that have bar coded areas and come with a wand reader which the child passes over the bar code to cause the machine to which the wand is attached to speak a word?
Videodiscs can also be used to store data files.
And what about microprocessor-containing radio controlled models?
Are these media with interchangeable purposes to be cataloged according to content or to physical form? Policy decisions. AACR2 states in 0.24 "... the starting point for description is the physical form of the item in hand...", however chapter 9 did not choose to follow this principle.
First of all, it has never been clear exactly what kinds of materials fall into this forbidden category. I do have a nice assortment of reproductions of lobby posters for old movies that would belong here. (They also present problems in determining the title proper.)
Changes to the AV format have been proposed to accommodate the prints and photographs and manuscripts people - those who have archival and manuscript collections. These same changes are to make it possible for us to use the AV format for 2- and 3-dimensional materials whether they are originals or reproductions. These changes have to go through MARBI, and then be implemented by OCLC. We still have a long time to wait.
This goes back to the policy question.
There has been much discussion of this question since OCLC published Technical Bulletin 112 and Verna Urbanski wrote an article for the On-Line Audiovisual Catalogers Newsletter (March 1982, P. 13). There has been extensive correspondence involving Glenn Patton of OCLC, Verna Urbanski, editor of the Newsletter, and Dick Thaxter of LC. I have seen all this correspondence to date, and have added my comments, and feel a satisfactory resolution of this whole question is close.
I am preparing a glossary of AV terms (or non-book terms?). The RTSD AV Committee will review my work. I want to include terms currently used, as well as those no longer used with cross-references to current terms, and with explanation of their sources and years of acceptance. If a term has several different definitions, I'm planning to include all, with their sources. I'd really like comments on this project. I'm beginning with terms from AACR 2 chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and the AV and sound recordings OCLC MARC formats.
I attended part of the national American Society for Information Science (ASIS) meeting held in Columbus, Ohio, October 17-21. ASIS had a special interest group (SIG) on non-print media from 1975-1980. This became the SIG on nonprint media and reprographics in 1981. I think it died in 1981. There was only one program on nonprint media as such at the conference, and its chair was unable to attend because of illness. I am writing him to ask if he knows anyone in ASIS who is concerned with AV cataloging.
The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), earlier the Division of Audiovisual Instruction (DAVI) of the National Education Association was very active in the development of standards for the cataloging of audiovisual materials in the early and mid 1970's, but does not seem to have anyone working in this area at present. They do have wonderful exhibits at their conference, with the newest of new technology available for inspection.
Does anyone else know of a person, or organization I should be talking with?
This article is for those of us who must catalog recorded sound but who have no expertise with the media. I suspect our numbers are legion. A recent letter to this editor prompted an investigation into the world of tape tracks, definition and explanation.
It is hard to sort out the different physical configurations that go with the various names. LC uses half track and 2 track interchangeably. Glenn Patton of OCLC explains: "'1/2-track' and '2-track', etc., were used interchangeably under previous rules mostly because the rules didn't specify the form and the recording industry used them interchangeably." The OCLC sound recordings format uses the parenthetical numbers 1, 2, and 4 to help show the relationship between full, half and quarter track and their numbered equivalents.
AACR2 calls for the use of numbers rather than the name of the track, i.e., 1 track, 2 track, 4 track, rather than full track, half track, quarter track. AACR2 rule 6.5C6 calls itself "number of tracks." Notice that we need to give the number of tracks only if it is not standard for the format. Footnote 2 to rule 6.5C6 indicates that at least two types are standard, cartridge at 8 tracks and cassette at 4 tracks. Glenn points out: "In most cases under AACR2, one would be giving the number of tracks in the physical description only for reel-to-reel tapes and even then it may often not be given since it may not be stated on the item and the cataloger may have no way of supplying it."
--Full (1) track - The original mono tape. Reel to reel. The
head scans the full width of the tape. It is recorded and played
forward with no "flip" capability.
--Half track (or 2 track) - When mono (reel to reel or cassette)
the tape width divides in half, recording one full channel on half
of the tape for the entire length. It can then flip and be recorded
on the other half for the full length. This doubles the capacity of
the tape without changing the sound (making it stereo) or amount of
tape used.
Half track (or 2 track) can also mean a stereo recording on two
channels. The head scans the full width of the tape and is scanning
two simultaneous channels of data. Usually this was reel to reel though
there could be a cassette done this way. There is no "flip" to record
more capability, because you use all the space available with the 2
channels of sound. This is also called "full track stereo".
--Quarter track (4 track) - Four tracks, 2 channels on each half
of a tape (stereo). With conventional (standard or whatever you want
to call it) reel-to-reel quarter track system the tape channels are
configured:
So a mono player cannot play a stereo tape and have a happy result. The head is not wired to accommodate the information arranged on alternate bands. While track 1 would play fine, track 2 would be reading backwards.
Cassettes are recorded in quarter track. Let me quote from New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and add an illustration:
"From the outset, cassettes were recorded in quartertrack stereo,
but with the left and right signals for each tape side recorded on
adjoining tracks (1:2 and 4:3) instead of divided (1:3 and 4:2) as on
conventional quarter track system.
Thus all mono (half-track) cassette machines could scan both tracks of a cassette simultaneously and produce an acceptable mono (sum) signal."
-- 8 Track - Again from the New Grove dictionary "...a continuous
play stereo cartridge.... the tap is wound in a continuous loop so
that it gives uninterrupted music. The eight tracks comprise four stereo
programmes on pairs of tracks (1:5, 2:6, 3:7, 4:8) with an automatic
changeover mechanism that moves the play back head at the end of each
track."
"When quadraphonic recordings appeared, the eight track cartridge was a natural medium, carrying two programmes, each of which occupied four tracks."
-- 12, 16, 24, 32 tracks are studio tapes used for commercial recording. The tracks all run the same direction with each track being used to record a chosen unit of the performance. During mixing the nature of each track can be adjusted to get the desired final product.
The subfield "i" of the 007 in the sound recordings format should be coded "c" when handling a cassette, unless the item specifies that it is 2 track.
For those of you interested in doing some reading on the topic I would recommend, "Sound recording, transmission and reproduction" found in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, especially pages 582-584. This is a long (pp. 567-589) and thorough article.
Shorter but still informative articles can be found in: Encyclopedia Americana (v. 26, pp. 278-282); and Britannica Macropedia (v.-77, pp. 51-60).
Under AACR2 rules, when data given in notes corresponds to data found in specific areas of the descriptive cataloging, the data should be transcribed in the notes using the prescribed punctuation, except instead of using space, dash, space, a full stop should be used. This is an easy to miss exception and for that reason, we reproduce here the AACR2 rule for this.
1.7A3. Form of Notes
Order of information. If data in a note correspond to
data found in the title and statement of responsibility,
edition, material (or type of publication) specific
details, publication, etc., physical description, and
series areas, give the elements of the data in the order
in which they appear in those areas. In such a case,
use prescribed punctuation, except substitute a full
stop for a full stop, space, dash, space.
The question below is part of a letter I wrote to OCLC's Glenn Patton this summer to which he responded with his usual cogent answer.
Urbanski to Patton: Because LC catalogs from data sheets the form of names I encounter on my chief source (films) doesn't match LC transcribed names. So far I've found OCLC records on-line and haven't had to put in modernized LC cataloging. But one of these days I will have LC copy to input when the form of the name is different. I am in a quandary about whether to input LC's form of the name or to establish a form based on my chief source following AACR2 and coding it $w 4n.
This is not a question on using the form of name used at the time of publication. I know we need to do that. I'll give an example.
A group of titles I was working with all had LC copy. On all but one the LC producer/releaser area said "BNA incorporated, date. Made by Quest Productions". The odd one said merely "BNA Films". LC established BNA Incorporated as the tracing, but our films always said BNA Films. LC used BNA Films as the tracing only on the one where they named BNA Films in the producer/releaser area. None of our films ever said "Made by Quest Productions". They all said "A Quest production". LC has established three names involving Quest and none is associated with BNA. "Quest Productions" has one entry in association with Phoenix Films. "Quest Films" and "Quest Film Productions" are forms of names used by an Australian/Canadian company.
When I produced copy, I used "BNA Films" in the 260 and established on my own "Quest (Production company)" as an AACR2 form of the producer's name. This satisfies me, but only because it affects only my cards, not a permanent on-line record.
Patton responds: We already have an established policy for dealing in problems and errors in Library of Congress cataloging. Those are reported to us on Change Request Forms with appropriate proof (in the case you describe, that would be a transcription of the title and credit frames). Depending on the particular case, we either correct the problem and report it to LC, or we report it and wait for a corrected MARC record. If you are working with pre-MARC LC copy, I would simply correct the description, supply AACR2 forms of entry, and code "Mod rec:" as 'm' with your symbol in subfield 'd' of the 040.
During a recent workshop a participant asked how to handle kits which come bound like a book but are intended to be taken apart to be used. This person's library took them apart, mounted transparencies, assembled models, and did what was necessary to make it patron ready, including providing external packaging. I advised the cataloger to proceed as follows. Input on a type "o" not a type "a" record. Code type mat "b" for kit. Use gmd "kit". Do 260 to enumerate quantity and type of material but don't describe local containerization until after the record was updated into the system if it were a new record. Add a note of the type: "Originally issued in book form" or "Manufactured in bound format".
Glenn Patton of OCLC adds these words of caution: "The essential factor is that the item must meet the criteria in rules 1.10A-c and the glossary definition for determining what is a kit. The example which you describe certainly is. One which is entirely print material certainly isn't. In addition, the question of predominance must be satisfied. Also, be certain to include an ISBN, if present. I have a nagging worry that other users may miss this bibliographic record since they may not consider the item to be a kit."
Dick Miller, Associate Librarian of the Basic Medical Sciences Library of the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, writes to tell us of the publication of union catalog of medical audiovisuals. This September should see the third annual volume produced. Production is done from OCLC tapes. The consortium includes fifteen participants though not all have their audiovisual included in Medical Audiovisuals In Northeastern Ohio.
For more information about the computer programs used to produce this publication or questions about it in general, write: Dick R. Miller, Associate Librarian, Basic Medical Sciences Library, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, State Route #44, Rootstown, Ohio 44272.
--Verna Urbanski
Nancy Olson included in the June issue (v. 2, no. 2. pp. 18-19) a report of the speech she gave before the User Council Meeting held May 24-25th at OCLC. Below is a brief summary of points made by her and the other group leaders as reported in the Minutes of the meeting (issued 82/6/11). It is included in the hope that it will familiarize our readers with the types of groups currently available and what they see their mandated to be.
The Users Council next heard from six guests, all of whom are chairmen of user groups which represent special interests. The purpose of inviting the user group chairmen was to promote mutual awareness among the various groups; i.e., to make the Users Council aware of the organization and concerns of user groups and to make user groups aware of the roles and responsibilities of the Users Council. Brief highlights of each presentation follow:
Nancy Olson (Mankato State University) Chairman, On-line Audiovisual Catalogers
Rick Forsman (University of Alabama in Birmingham) and President, Health Science OCLC Users Group
Gregory Koster (Pace University) Online Bibliographic Services Special Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries.
Elizabeth Mangan (Library of Congress) President, Map Online Users Group
Richard Smiraglia (University of Illinois) Chairman, Music OCLC Users Group
Hugh Durbin (Columbus Public Schools) Chairman, School Librarian's User Group
In its 1982 catalog, Source Systems, Inc., had a helpful set of definitions which may be of interest to people coping with the wonders of the micro- mini world.
-- Editor
[The following is a slightly edited version of a report and a letter written by Sheila Intner (vice-chair/chair-elect of OLAC). The meeting Sheila reports on is one held July 13th during ALA in Philadelphia. I would urge any of you having an opinion on CIP for AV to follow Sheila's example and write Susan Vita to share your views.-- Editor]
Dear Verna:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter I sent to Susan Vita, Chief of LC's CIP Division, as a result of listening to a cataloging head say he couldn't care less if AV materials were ever cataloged. This remark was made in Tuesday morning's CIP Discussion group. Vita and her staff reported on their tenth-year-of-CIP survey at this meeting and one of the recommendations was to include AV formats in the CIP program. They were obviously gathering feedback from this meeting to take back, together with survey results, to form the basis for future action. I spoke up immediately in the meeting, but the letter is intended to reinforce what I said publicly and also, after the meeting in a brief conversation with Vita.
It may be useful for the Newsletter to summarize the findings, possibly also some of my letter to Susan Vita and ask members to write to Vita to urge that AV be given a higher priority in the CIP program... The survey's findings are as follows: (My paraphrases of the CIP Survey Final Report, pp. B-1 & 2)
There were 9 recommendations based on the responses: (pp. B-6 to 9)
As you can see, the inclusion of AV was the 8th recommendation, with about 1/3 of the respondents mentioning it as a priority.
Ms. Susan H. Vita
Chief, CIP Division
Library of Congress
Washington, D. C. 20540
Dear Ms. Vita:
Improving access to nonprint materials has been a particular con- cern of mine since serving as Music Librarian at Great Neck (N.Y.) Library some years ago. I was responsible for selection, acquisition, cataloging and circulation of all nonprint materials, not only musical recordings, as well as printed music materials.
Recently, I completed my doctoral dissertation on the subject, titled "Access to Media" adding a theoretical base to my more practical exposure to the problem. "Access to Media" surveyed over 400 public librarians about their methods of providing bibliographic.access to nonprint materials and their attitudes toward better access routes. An overwhelming majority agreed that integrated catalogs, i.e., mainstreaming bibliographic records with those for print was the means of providing the best service to the public. They also agreed that the best information could sometimes be found in media items and that the public liked using them.
Looking carefully at experts' suggestions in the library literature for accomplishing this task as well as for helping develop nonprint collections, two recommendations stand out: First, to include cataloging information on the container of non print items; and second, to include this data in online bibliographic databases used for acquisitions and cataloging purposes. Many studies and institutes offered this recommendation, among them Brown's report of the Seminar on Nonprint Media Information Networking (1976), and, more recently, Olson's study of academic libraries (1980) and Dale's study of two-year colleges (1981).
Perusal of the literature of a variety of disciplines indicates that much current research is based in areas where nonprint formats are important for source materials. Among these are medical and other life sciences, cybernetics, physics, chemistry, astronomy and other physical sciences as well as the arts -- musicology, folk and ethnic arts, dance, art history, architecture and film -- and humano-social sciences, such as contemporary history, popular culture, oral history, communications and so on.
The importance of extending CIP into audiovisual formats may not seem as critical to some of our research library colleagues as it is to those who serve in college, public and school library situations, but, I believe, it is only because the larger and more complex the institution, the more likely it is that the same person does not have to deal with both print and nonprint formats. It is this isolation and relative newness of the nonprint acquisitions and cataloging professional that dilutes their influence in these libraries. Unfortu- nately, in some situations, the small size and lack of effectiveness of media collections is perpetuated by professionals who choose to ignore their development because it seems a troublesome duty rather than matching its priority to patron needs.
For all of these reasons (there are probably others I have failed to recognize and articulate) I wish to go on record as most emphatically and respectfully urging that extension of CIP to audiovisual formats be given a high priority. Monographic sound recordings, films, video- recordings, computer software and instructional materials are among the most innovative and exciting resources available and they are the least understood, controlled and utilized by librarians, particularly technical service librarians. CIP could provide the information needed in a timely and easily used fashion to rectify the situation and help us do what many of us perceive to be a better job for our patrons.
Sincerely,
Sheila Intner
[Ms. Intner is on the faculty of the School of Library Service at Columbia University in New York.]
In the September issue (v. 2, no. 3) we provided you with a brief
summary of three presentations made during an OLAC program on video-
recordings (see "Processing of Videorecordings Discussed,"
p. 3-5) held
during the Philadelphia ALA. Martha Yee (Biomedical Library, University
of California), one of the three presenters, has contacted us to ask
that the following clarifications be made.
--Editor
The Library of Congress has recently published a separate manual to cover cataloging of graphic materials more fully than the second edition of the Anglo-American cataloging rules. It is entitled Graphic Materials: Rules for Describing Original Items and Historical Collections and is compiled by Elisabeth W. Betz. This 153 page paperback is available from the Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C . 20541. The LC card number is 82-600260 and the OCLC control number is #8689241. It is a potentially valuable tool for libraries with collections of original or historic photographs, prints, portfolios, and other graphic materials.
-- Laurel Jizba
Feel free to copy and disseminate anything printed here as long as the source is acknowledged. REMEMBER: some information dates quickly so watch later issues for updates. If a library relies on information we publish, it would be best for them to be a regular subscriber.
Reporting period:
1 July 1982 to 30 October 1982
Account Balance 7-1-82 $1,939.87
Income
New memberships 330.00
Renewal memberships 555.40
Miscellaneous 69.37
Interest paid on account 8.40
-----------
Total income $ 963.17
TOTAL $2,903.04
Expenses
Newsletter vol. 2, no. 3 $ 199.39
OLAC postage 40.32
ALA equipment fees 59.00
Bank fee (new checks) 5.99
Executive board costs for ALA 415.63
-----------
Total expenses $ 720.33
ACCOUNT BALANCE 11-1-82 $2,182.71
CURRENT MEMBERSHIP 476*
*This includes 99 members who have not yet renewed their memberships
but have not yet been purged.
Please take note--1982 is nearly over. When 1982 expires so do most of our memberships. So, please send your renewal in promptly. Our membership year coincides with the calendar year. The fee for membership is, I am sure you can agree minimal. Your $5.00 or $10.00 buys you quite a lot.
If your address changes please notify Catherine Leonardi, OLAC s treasurer. Write: Catherine Leonardi, 3604 Suffolk, Durham, North Carolina 27707
Cross out any incorrect information:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
Make check payable to On-Line Audiovisual Catalogers and mail to:
Return to Table of Contents
Top
Last modified: December 1997
URL: http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/newsletters/...
HTML version created by Brenda Battleson (
blb@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Return to OLAC Newsletter index