Enhanced CDs, 006s, and 007s

Question: I am cataloging an enhanced CD with an array of characteristics. I am not certain about how many additional 006 and 007 fields are needed for it, not to mention which format type(s) to choose. The example in hand is primarily a standard audio CD that can also be used as a CD-ROM to view two music videos, with the capability of viewing the lyrics of each song a line or two at a time while listening to the songs via the computer. In the past, it would have been sufficient to code the record as a musical sound recording (with the respective 007 field), and to add fields 006 and 007 for the computer file (CF) aspects. However, now that the guidelines for when to use Type "m" have changed, does that also affect coding for secondary aspects? When creating a full-level cataloging record for the CD as described above, would the cataloger need to add fields 006 and 007 for the electronic resource aspects, another 006 and 007 for visual materials and yet another 006 for the textual aspects?

Answer: The item described as "primarily a standard audio CD" should, as you say, be coded as a musical sound recording (Type "j") with a corresponding sound recording 007. Beyond this, the other aspects need to be considered. Since it is an "Enhanced CD" with computer file aspects, a CF 006 and CF 007 are needed. Regarding the lyrics display, it is useful to think the situation through and consider a few analogies. Clearly, the song lyrics are important, but in the context of this whole item, should they be considered as accompanying material (similar to a lyrics sheet or program notes accompanying a music CD) or as an aspect equal in importance to the sound and/or the CD-ROM element? Although it is a matter of judgment, my tendency would be to lean toward considering these lyrics to be accompanying material, not necessarily having sufficient value to the end user for coding a textual 006. Catalogers can think of this as roughly analogous to movie subtitles or closed captions, which are equally useful but for which a textual 006 is not provided. The point here is not to denigrate song lyrics in the least, but just to suggest that there might be a way of "weighting" decisions on this kind of matter. For instance, if this were an opera CD that included, say, a "pdf" of the opera libretto (just as some opera CDs and LPs are sometimes accompanied by printed libretto booklets), then this kind of case might be considered substantial enough to be worth giving access via a textual 006. In the case described here, however, I would suggest noting the availability of the lyrics, but not including field 006 for that textual aspect.

.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:.

Coding 006 and 007 Fields for Accompanying Material

Question: Popular song lyrics may not always rise to a level of importance that would warrant additional format coding, but what about the case of a popular music audio CD that is "enhanced" to include music videos for the songs that can be viewed via computer? Another example would be audio CDs that also contain a whole range of other material (pictures, videos, musical analysis, commentaries, etc.). In other words, is providing CF fields 006 and 007 alone still sufficient for all secondary material that is accessed as a CD-ROM, or does the change in MARC towards preferring Type Codes other than "m" for textual, visual, or audio material mean that a CF 006 and 007 alone are no longer sufficient with respect to extending OCLC's "Cataloging Electronic Resources" guidelines for primary formats to secondary formats?

Answer: Technology long ago outpaced catalogers' means of giving access to such complex materials. AACR2 and MARC 21 are imperfect and incomplete tools in trying to accomplish the best access that catalogers can manage (and AACR3, I feel confident in predicting, will likewise be imperfect and incomplete). When cataloging any individual item, whether it is something as traditional as a book or as cutting edge as the most complex multimedia item imaginable, catalogers make choices about how--and how much--description and access to provide. Each individual case will differ, as will the cataloger's judgments about the relative importance of different aspects of each individual item. The libretto example in the question above is a good example of this kind of judgment. Another point to make about more complex items is that catalogers should not feel compelled to account for absolutely everything, but that judgment should be used. In the case above, stating that it was "not necessary" to use a textual 006 to bring out the presence of the song lyrics does not mean that there is anything wrong with doing so. Similarly, if another aspect (videos, still photographs, whatever) of the item is judged to be worth bringing out with a corresponding field 006, then by all means it should be done. Now if I understand it correctly, the question is if catalogers should try to use 006 fields to account for the particular materials (text, video, photos, etc.) that may be presented via, say, the CD-ROM component of an "Enhanced CD" that primarily has audio characteristics. Again, catalogers must resort to judgment and remember that it is not always possible to account for everything. The CF 006 is supplied to give (admittedly rudimentary) access to the CD-ROM material, whatever it may be, with the corresponding 538 given to specify the equipment, software, etc. needed to access that material, with the possibility of adding another note detailing what that material is. In many (probably most) cases, that should be sufficient. Catalogers should not feel obligated to code 006 fields beyond that to account for any individual CD-ROM aspects, except when they judge that information to be particularly appropriate.

.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:.

Describing DVD Special Features

Question: I am cataloging a DVD that has 2 discs, one for the movie and one devoted to special features. Should "2 videodiscs" or "1 videodisc" be given in the 300 field? Either solution would seem to call for a 500 note to mention the presence of a disc for special features, right? It seems to me that "1 videodisc" would be correct for the 300, since the running time in subfield $a is supposed to be only for the film and not the special features. However, I cannot seem to find any documentation on this and would appreciate some guidance.

Answer: Describe the resource as "2 videodiscs", with the parenthetical duration covering only the main feature. If the material on the second disc lends itself to a list of contents (with durations, if appropriate), they can be listed in a full or partial contents note in field 505. If those special features do not lend themselves to presentation as a formal contents note, then the contents of second disc may be outlined more generally in a 500 note. Example:

.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:.

Video Parallel Titles

Question: The chief source of information for motion pictures and videorecordings is mainly taken from the title screen. At times, a feature film in DVD format has optional translated titles on the title screen; sometimes there are several of them. Should they all be given as parallel titles in the 245 field or just be placed in field 246?

Answer: AACR2 Rule 7.1D1 refers back to the general Rule 1.1D on parallel titles. LCRI 1.1D2, labeled "LC practice" (which, remember, means it can be followed or not according to an institution's needs and/or cataloger's judgment), says to follow the outlined practice for a "second-level description". That level would entail recording, after the title, the first parallel title, as well as any subsequent parallel title that is in English. Additionally, if both the title proper and the first parallel title are in a non-roman script and there is no title in English, give as the second parallel title one in a roman alphabet language, following this order of choices: French, German, Spanish, Latin, any other roman alphabet language. If following "third-level description", all parallel titles would be transcribed. In that case, any parallel titles that appear in the chief source would be transcribed in field 245 and would also be given access in individual 246 fields coded for parallel title. Additionally, any parallel title found on the item, but not in the chief source, could also be transcribed in a 246 field, with an appropriate introductory phrase stating its source.

.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:.

Coding 007 for CDs with Multiple Capture and Storage Techniques

Question: How should the "capture and storage techniques" portion of the Sound Recording (SR) 007 ( subfield $n, 007/13) be recorded for a compilation on compact disc that gives the SPARS codes "ADD/DDD"? That is, some of the selections on the disc were recorded via analog techniques and some digitally. Since subfield $n of 007 is non-repeatable, it is impossible to record both "e" and "d". Coding it "z" for "Other" could be a possibility, but that was really intended for capture techniques not represented at all by any of the other codes, such as recordings from piano rolls.

Answer: The best way to deal with this situation is to create two SR 007 fields, one with the subfield $n (007/13) coded "e" for the analog electrical storage and the other coded "d" for digital storage. In MARC 21, no individual element of any 007 is repeatable.

.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:.

Punctuation in Statement of Responsibility Notes

Question: In making my first attempt at cataloging DVDs yesterday, I ran across a conflict in punctuation in the 508 note where there are multiple statements of people with different functions. AACR2R Rule 7.7B6 shows no space preceding the semicolon. OCLC's Bibliographic Formats & Standards (c2002) shows a space before and after the semicolon. LC's MARC21 Format for Bibliographic Data for 508 notes (updated in October 2001) shows spaces before and after the semicolon in the shorter notes; however, in the last, very long example, the space preceding the semicolon was omitted. This means the examples in MARC show both methods of punctuation. Which way is correct? My gut feeling is to ignore the examples used in AACR2R and add the space so that the punctuation follows what is used in 245 subfield $c when there are multiple statements of responsibility (as in Rule 1.1F6). I realize this is not a life-shattering decision, but it is giving me indigestion.

Answer: Similar questions have arisen in the past, and I have taken the liberty of adapting and updating my answer to one of those similar questions. The original appeared in MOUG Newsletter no. 79 (November 2001), on p. 12; it was reprinted as Question 6.6 in my Cataloger's Judgment, on p. 169-170. Here is the updated answer:

First, it is important to keep in mind the statement found in AACR2's General Introduction 0.14: "The examples used throughout these rules are illustrative and not prescriptive. That is, they illuminate the provisions of the rule to which they are attached, rather than extend those provisions. Do not take the examples or the form in which they are presented as instructions unless specifically told to do so by the accompanying text". Since 7.7B6 does not address punctuation and the rules on punctuation of notes (7.7A1 and 1.7A) do not directly address such internal punctuation, the examples in 7.7B6 should not be taken as establishing any punctuation rules. In fact, 1.7A3 states, in part: "If data in a note correspond to data found in the title and statement of responsibility ... give the elements of the data in the order in which they appear in those areas. In such a case, use prescribed punctuation ...". Because both fields 508 and 511 are logical extensions of the statement of responsibility, and 1.1A1 states, "Precede each subsequent statement of responsibility by a semicolon", and 1.0C1, paragraph 3 states, "Precede each mark of prescribed punctuation by a space and follow it by a space …", it seems that the "space semicolon space" practice is at least acceptable.

As far as I have been able to determine, the last official word on this topic appeared as Music Cataloging Decision 6.7B6 in the December 1992 issue of "Music Cataloging Bulletin", based on a memo from Bob Ewald in LC's Cataloging Policy and Support Office. Although this is a Music Cataloging Decision , it refers likewise to corresponding examples in various AACR2 rules (including also 7.7B6 and 9.7B6) that variously followed and did not follow prescribed punctuation. It should be noted that the MCD was citing the 1978 and 1988 texts of AACR2; in the current text of AACR2, the examples under 6.7B6 and 7.7B6 use standard punctuation, but the 9.7B6 example uses prescribed punctuation. So, although the specific discrepancies have shifted around, they remain within the text, and I believe that the MCD's advice can still be taken.

In the MCD, Mr. Ewald reports that the issue was discussed at LC. He writes, in part: "The consensus of the discussion was that prescribed punctuation in the note was not required by Rule 1.7A3 since the note does not necessarily reflect exact transcription from the source from which the data are taken. On the other hand, the presence of prescribed punctuation in the 1988 Rule 9.7B6 indicates that prescribed punctuation is not forbidden, and in fact may be useful when the note contains a long listing of entities performing a number of different functions. Conclusion: Standard punctuation (semicolon-space) or prescribed punctuation (space-semicolon-space) may be used when making the notes called for [in] AACR 2 Rules 6.7B6, 7.7B6, 9.7B6". In other words, one is not required to use prescribed punctuation in fields 508 and 511, but it is often helpful in making the notes more readable.

.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:.

Region and Color System Information for DVDs

Question: There is a record in OCLC for a film title that is for a PAL region 2 DVD. My institution owns a DVD that seems to correspond in every way to this record, except that our copy of the DVD is not region 2, even though the packaging states that it is region 2. It is either region 1 or all regions; there is no way to ascertain which it is. In checking with the originators of the cataloging record, they confirmed that their DVD is indeed region 2. Some time ago, there was discussion on the OLAC list about this exact situation. Some people thought that the difference in regionality alone was enough to justify a new record, since it affects access very strongly; others thought that it was not enough, since the technical difference is apparently very small. My own argument was that it really did not matter, because when the regions are different, there would surely also be some other difference, such as in publisher, year, extras, etc. It turns out that in this case there appears to be no difference whatsoever, except for the regionality . Should a new record be made for this DVD? What about adding a 500 with a $5? Ultimately, this situation is not a big deal, since the movie in question does not appear to be very popular. Still, it would be a good idea to know how best to approach this situation, should it occur again.

Answer: Part of the problem regarding region information is that many institutions do not include this information in bibliographic records for DVDs that are coded for their own particular region. OLAC's own "Guide to Cataloging DVDs" <http://www.olacinc.org/capc/dvd/dvdprimer0.html> sanctions the ignoring of regional information in such cases. For the sake of international cooperation, I would encourage catalogers to include regional information whenever it is available. In your case, however, there appears to be an explicit conflict between a region 2 DVD using the PAL color system and a DVD that is either region 1 or all-region. Although you do not say so, I imagine as well that your DVD uses the NTSC color system, given its region. When there is an explicit difference between either region or color system (NTSC, PAL, SECAM), I would consider a new record to be justified. Of course, there is always the option of using an existing record and editing it locally, although catalogers should only use this option as a last resort, since this practice could mislead users of that record as to what DVD actually exists in the collection.

.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:._,_.:~*~:.

Interpreting LCRI 1.11A

Question: This is a question regarding electronic reproductions and other similar publications, since LC's Rule Interpretation (1.11A) is less than helpful with regard to their treatment. More specifically, this is in reference to CD-ROMs that are occasionally (but not necessarily) issued simultaneously with a corresponding printed monograph. Close examination will sometimes reveal that the CD-ROM is actually accompanying material, although most times it will consist of " pdf " files that exactly duplicate the print version. According to the LCRI, there is a difference between "electronic reproductions", "electronic republications", and "simultaneous publications in analog and digital form". The rules for cataloging the first type are clear, but there is no guidance as to how to treat them if they fall into either of the second two categories; there is also no clear guidance on how to distinguish one from the other. It is obvious enough how to treat electronic publication consisting of " pdf " files, with no variations, but how about one which varies only in the way the title page information is presented? Would it be too literal to say that this varies from the printed text, even though the intellectual content is exactly the same? Something that is cataloged as a reproduction is described as if it were the print, with a reproduction note; something that is not is presumably cataloged as an electronic resource with the appropriate description. This makes it impossible to refer to specific pages of the text for quoted notes or bibliographical references. Please explain how to deal with these types of materials and how to interpret the LCRI.

Answer: To my mind, the implication of the LCRI regarding "electronic republications or simultaneous publication in analog and digital form" is that individual institutions are free to treat them as they wish, with the text clearly leaning towards not following the LCRI in those instances. That is to say, such publications judged not to be "reproductions" in the sense outlined in LCRI 1.11A, may be treated as what is now called "born-digital" publications. Chapter 9 and, in the case of textual files, Chapter 2 would be used for guidance. The meaning of "simultaneous publication" is fairly clear, I think. The distinction that I have in mind between "electronic reproduction" and "electronic republication" (which is merely my own guess and therefore cannot be taken as an authoritative account of LC's intentions) is between versions that mimic the look, feel, and pagination of the original (such as "pdf", and similar sorts of files) and those versions that do not (such as HTML, and similar sorts of files). Of course, the fact that HTML and similar files cannot be referred to in terms of specific page numbers is a problem inherent in the technology rather than in cataloging practice, and I see no remedy for that. One would think that this would be a consideration for those making electronic reproductions of all types.

Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section