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

OLAC CATALOGER’S JUDGMENT
By Jay Weitz


Coding Field 246 for Titles Not Derived from Field 245

Question: This question concerns the correct coding of the indicators in field 246 for the following video.
245 00       Pamela Crawford’s Container gardens $h [videorecording] /$c producer, Bill Baxter ; director, Mark Thorn ; script, Pamela Crawford, Kaki Holt.
246 30       Container gardens
246 1         $i Title on disc surface and container: $a Pamela Crawford’s Container gardens for Florida
246 30       Container gardens for Florida
The question is for the last 246: should a "0" or "blank" be used for the second indicator?

Answer: In field 246, the second indictor "0" is used for portions of the title that appears in field 245, as is the case with the first 246. Partial titles derived from titles other than those found in field 245 (such as the "disc surface and container" title of the second 246) would be coded with a second indicator of "blank". So the third 246 should properly have a "blank" second indicator.

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

PowerPoint with Narration on CD-ROM

Question: What is the primary characteristic of a CD-ROM with slides (text, with a few illustrations) and the tutor’s voiceover: language material or visual material? In trying to catalog the CD-ROM as visual material, it did not work out--the GMD, 300 field, Type Code, and the 008, 007 and 006 fields became mixed up. Using "videorecording" as the GMD and "1 CD-ROM" in the 300 also did not seem to be correct. However, using the GMD "electronic resource" did not correlate with the 008 for visual materials, etc. Please advise.

Answer: If I understand the question correctly, this is a CD-ROM that contains a chiefly textual PowerPoint presentation with narration. If that is the case, I would suggest using the GMD "electronic resource," Type "a" for the textual aspect, field 006 for the computer file aspect, and field 007 for the CD-ROM. Following the first option in AACR2 9.5B1, describe it as "1 CD-ROM" and include "sd." and "col." (if that is appropriate) under 9.5C. In field 538, describe the software (PowerPoint?) and any other system requirements. If necessary, describe the language(s) of the text and the narration, if they differ from that of the title proper.

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

Infinite Variety of Language Options on DVDs

Question: It is very confusing to determine how to handle certain DVDs with Multilanguage options, with respect to the title and language information in fields 240, 245, 246, 740. For a DVD called El Bola, the film is in Spanish and English subtitles can be selected, if desired. On the title screen, only the Spanish title shows unless the English subtitles have been selected; in that case, the English title displays as a subtitle. For that situation, should this English title be included somewhere in the record, and if so where? Another example is a Baby Einstein DVD called Baby Neptune. For this one, the language choices are English, French, or Spanish. For each language chosen, the title and credit information, as well as the spoken language, is in that language; i.e., if French is chosen, the titles display in French on the screen and the spoken word is in French. Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. The online records are such a mishmash with everyone doing what they think best.

Answer: DVDs and their seemingly infinite variety of language options have vastly complicated that particular aspect of video cataloging. Because the possibilities are so vast, it is a bit difficult to generalize, but let us try to break it down. Always keep in mind a few caveats: that publishers may very well have issued varying versions of what otherwise appear to be the same video, that some catalogers are more or less thorough than others in delineating exactly what languages may be available, and that there can be contradictory information about language availability within the same DVD (on packaging and on a displayed menu, for instance). With these in mind, it will usually be prudent to start by taking any information, both in a bibliographic record and within the resource itself, with some skepticism. Moreover, plan to err on the side of editing existing records that may be close, but not exact, matches to what is in hand. Because the title frames (and an integral label) are the chief sources of information for a DVD, it is what appears there that determines what titles/languages are transcribed in the 245. Here is what I would suggest. Transcribe in field 245 (and give access to) any parallel titles that appear in the title frames when the subtitling capabilities are turned off. If subtitling must be turned on in order to see any such parallel title(s), but the parallel title(s) appears on the integral label (that is, the DVD surface), include such parallel title(s) in the 245 (and give access to them). Any parallel title(s) that appears only on a (non-integral) container and/or in the subtitles when that language is selected, should be noted in a note and given access (though field 246 or through a 500/740 combination, whatever is appropriate in the circumstance). Exactly what languages are available and in what combinations should be outlined as clearly and succinctly as possible in a note (546, most likely). The Baby Neptune circumstance is one I have not previously encountered, but certainly is among that "seemingly infinite variety of language options" mentioned above. It sounds as though it would need to be treated as an item with three parallel titles/statements of responsibility, provide 246 fields for the additional parallel titles, and explain the language situation in a note, again as clearly and succinctly as possible.

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

The Metaphysics of Fields 006 and 007

Question: It is not quite clear what the "mandatoriness" of the 006 and 007 fields is. As to the 006: at one place in OCLC’s Bibliographic Formats & Standards (BF&S) it says, "Use the same input standard for the fixed field and 006 elements". This seems to be saying that the 006 field is required if any of its associated fixed field elements are mandatory. But another place <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/006.shtm> says, "... you may use field 006 ... ", which implies that only if a cataloger were to choose to give an 006 of a particular type would it be necessary to follow the input standards for associated fixed field elements. This last location also says, "If an element is in a 006 prompt, it has the same input standard as the fixed field element". Now, how is this interpreted? Does "prompt" translate to "edit/input window" in the Connexion Client context? It is worth mentioning that the MARC 21 full level National Level Record shows all 006s as optional.

For the 007, BF&S <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/0xx/default.shtm> says, "Use field 007 to code for the physical characteristics of an item", which appears to be fairly definitive: it is mandatory for the primary carrier for all types of resources. Except for the fact that it says later, "Use an appropriate 007 field if you are cataloging microforms, motion pictures, nonprojected graphics, projected graphics, videorecordings, etc., that are published separately". This makes it seem as if it is mandatory only for these types of resources. (There are also specific requirements for accompanying material, kits, reproductions, etc.). However, the information found in <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/0xx/007comp.shtm> and <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/0xx/007sound.shtm> indicates that the electronic resource and sound recording 007s are required if applicable, even though they are not mentioned in the previously cited selection. (The MARC 21 full level National Level Record has only the electronic resource and microform 007s as required if applicable.)

Would it be possible to show this information in the same way as that for variable data fields, with a chart at the top?

Answer: Joel Hahn (Lead Cataloger, Niles Public Library District, Niles, Illinois) provided the following excellent response on OCLC-CAT, reproduced here with his permission:
"I do not have a concrete rule to point you to for 006s, but for 007s, OCLC’s Input Standards Tables contains all of the "required, required if applicable, optional" decisions for every field and subfield at <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/tables/en/0xx.shtm>.

"Summary of what it has to say:
007 Physical Description Fixed Field (ELvl: I / ELvl: K) "So with four exceptions, if you are doing I-level cataloging, 007s are required when applicable, but when you are doing K-level cataloging, they are all optional. That said, if I remember correctly, certain 007 positions are indexed in WorldCat (such as to enable searching for DVDs), so it is in everyone’s best interest if they are always included when applicable. 006s are probably best handled the same way, for similar reasons (for forthcoming searching capabilities even if that’s not a factor right this minute)."
To which your humble columnist added: Joel’s response is right on the mark, although I will make a few additional general points. Certain 006 and 007 elements do play an important part in indexing, but also in record matching, both for Batchloading of records and for de-duplication of the database. The presence and correct coding of appropriate 006 and 007 fields assist in accomplishing all of that. It is difficult to offer precise and consistent rules about fields 006 and 007 being required/mandatory/optional because those fields are used for several different purposes. Most commonly, the fields can represent different aspects of a resource (for instance, the seriality of a non-textual resource such as a sound recording or video, or the electronic aspect of a textual resource on the Web), or they can represent accompanying material (for instance, the presence of a CD-ROM accompanying a book), or they--the 007 field, at least--can simply be a coded extension/representation of the physical description of the main resource itself, or occasionally, even some combination of these different uses. OCLC users are encouraged to create and code these fields when appropriate, but given the various uses of the fields for different purposes, it is difficult to offer hard and fast rules about when they should be included in a record and when they are optional (even if the variant standards for different Encoding Levels are ignored). In the "Field 006" and "Integrating Resources" sections of the document "Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines" <http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresources/default.htm> standards are recommended for the use of field 006 in those particular circumstances. Informally, I would say that OCLC strongly encourages the use of field 006 in the various other circumstances in which it is appropriate, as described in BF&S and elsewhere. To give just an example of the complexities, let me refer you to two sets of Q&A that appeared in the OLAC Newsletter 25/2 (June 2005), p. 32-34 <http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/june05/qanda.html>, under the titles, "Enhanced CDs, 006s, and 007s" and "Coding 006 and 007 Fields for Accompanying Material". I am aware that this may not be a particularly satisfying answer to the question, but I hope it goes some distance in explaining why a satisfying answer may not be possible.

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

Blanks in Field 007

Question: For subfield $f (sound) in the Electronic Resource 007, a "blank" indicates that there is no sound. When input and then reformatted, the subfield goes away. Trying the "|BLANK|" solution mentioned at <http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/connexion/client/cataloging/constantdata/>, does not work in the Connexion Client (either for a bibliographic record or a constant data record). What can be done?

Answer: The "|BLANK|" solution does not work in field 007 in either a bibliographic record or a constant data record because that particular subfield (the Electronic Resource 007/05 position, in MARC 21 terms) allows only a single character. It has long (and possibly always) been an OCLC convention that upon a reformat command, all blank fields and subfields disappear. Of course, the subfielding of 007 fields (like the mnemonic structures of the OCLC fixed fields and 006 fields) are merely OCLC display conventions to help users accurately assign codes to the correct positions in what MARC 21 represents and exchanges as mere strings of characters (sometimes including blanks, fill characters, hyphens, etc.). The meaningful blank in the Electronic Resource 007/05 remains in the bibliographic record even though it disappears from the OCLC display. On the other hand, to protect fixed field elements in constant data records, the "asterisk" convention (mentioned a little further on in the same document cited above) does work.

Thanks to my OCLC colleague Linda Gabel for her contributions to answering this question.

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

Type Code, GMD, and SMD for a Video on CD-ROM

Question: The online record for a CD-ROM being cataloged here (The Mastery Dental Assisting Course), has Type Code "m" with a GMD "electronic resource". This does not seem correct, since the "most significant aspect" of this CD-ROM’s contents is video material. Indeed, the set-up instruction insert refers to the contents as a "Video CD-ROM course". Also, our library already has the equivalent on a set of videocassettes. Therefore, it would seem that a decision to change the Type Code to "g" would be correct. However, does this change mean that the GMD should therefore be "videorecording", along the lines of DVD-videos? Sometimes it is rather befuddling what exactly determines "GMD-ness", especially considering that clever DVD-video players eliminate the PC/CD-ROM drive from the equation, thus rendering some items less "electronic" in a sense. One wonders why the online record was coded "m"; was it because the cataloger did not or could not establish the true nature of the contents (there is quite a fiddly setup involved) or was it was an "autopilot response" to being confronted by a CD-ROM rather than a DVD-video? On this note, would "CD-ROM-video" be the acceptable "term in common usage" for the 300 field?

Answer: It appears as though the choice of Type Code "g" makes sense, given that the predominant aspect is video, so yes, it should be changed. However, in GMD terms, because the disk is a CD-ROM, it is considered an "electronic resource". Under the current rules, the "electronic resource" GMD trumps any other GMD (such as "videorecording") that might apply. Now, catalogers know that this does not make complete sense, seeing that videorecordings in DVD format are also "electronic" in many respects. But for the purposes of cataloging, the technologies are different and DVDs are considered primarily a video format and CD-ROMs primarily a computer file format. Regarding the SMD in the 300 field, in the decision to go the "term in common usage" route, it is perfectly acceptable to describe it simply as "1 CD-ROM". Any specific format details and/or system requirements should be outlined in a 538 field.

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

Dolby Digital, Straight, No Chaser

Question: How should the 007 for a DVD that has the Dolby Digital trademark with no other information (no Surround, etc.) be coded?

Answer: Under the assumption that the Dolby Website lt http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/tech_overview.html> can be trusted in its explanation about each of its many logo configurations, here is what it says briefly about what might be called, "Dolby Digital" straight, no chaser: "Dolby Digital: Delivers mono, stereo, or up to 5.1 discrete channels of surround sound: Left, Center, Right, Left Surround, Right Surround, and low-frequency effects (LFE). Global standard for DVD-Audio and DVD-Video. Digital audio standard for North American HDTV, digital cable, and DBS systems. Optional audio format for most digital video broadcast (DVB) applications worldwide". Clicking on the logo leads to a more detailed explanation. Of course, Dolby does not assign its logos for the convenience of catalogers, so it is difficult to say exactly what that might mean for coding the Videorecording 007/08 (subfield $i in OCLC terms). As I read Dolby’s explanation, it sounds as though applying code "q" is appropriate. If this solution keeps catalogers awake at night, the "u" option for "Unknown" is an alternative code that can be applied. Or the whole issue could be avoided by remembering that the position is optional and can be left out altogether.

Here is my reasoning, such as it is, for suggesting "q", again based on the (possibly faulty) assumption that the Dolby Website is being accurate and truthful. When I read the "Dolby Digital" blurb, I thought to myself, "Well, that sounds a lot like ‘Dolby Surround’ to me". But when I read the "Dolby Surround" longer explanation <http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/surround.html>, it shed further light on both logos. Officially (if I am reading this correctly), Dolby apparently limits "Dolby Surround" to videotape products and TV broadcast, and goes on to say: "With the introduction of the Dolby Digital multichannel film sound format, Dolby Digital has replaced Dolby Surround as the preferred technology to deliver multichannel audio to consumers via DVD-Video, digital television, and games. However, every Dolby Digital decoder also provides a Dolby Pro Logic-compatible stereo signal on its analog outputs". To me, that says "Dolby Digital" is in essence the name of the "Dolby Surround" videotape standard applied to DVDs and so implies surround or multichannel in spite of the absence of the word "surround" in the logo. Perhaps I am being too trusting (it would hardly be the first time) but as I read all that stuff on the Dolby site, I think of an analogy to stereo LPs, which were equally playable on mono equipment. Once again if I am reading Dolby’s information correctly, they seem to be saying that full multichannel is made available as a matter of course, but that, for less sophisticated equipment, the technology allows one to listen (more or less) equally well in stereo or even mono, through those respective mixdowns without the loss of anything substantial. It would hardly be surprising to find that some publishers are simply being inconsistent in presenting the information, sometimes following Dolby’s official simplicity and sometimes elaborating.

Now if I were a betting man (which I am not), I would wager that Dolby has probably also been less than consistent in its application of these logos over the years, and especially through the transition from VHS to DVD and beyond. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable in a cataloging context to take their word about how they indicate to users what their own technology does. After all, they enable us to believe much less reasonable things when we sit in a theater and listen to movie magic.

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

On-Demand Printout of a PDF File

Question: In researching a stack of DTIC (Defense Technical Information Center) reproductions of publications from the Library of Congress Federal Research Division on the FRD Website <http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/terrorism.html>, it became clear that these are available as PDF files online, for which "copies" can be ordered from the Photoduplication Service. So, it appears that the reproductions originated in PDF format rather than in print. It would therefore seem less than ideal to catalog these according to the LCRI 1.11 for Facsimiles, Photocopies, and Other Reproductions, but it is now unclear just how to handle these. There are many examples of records for electronic reproductions, but these just do not fit this situation, since the reproduction is in print format. If our institution had simply printed this out locally, our policy would have been to catalog the Website and make a local note (590) indicating that a paper copy had been printed in-house. However, these are "formal" DTIC reproductions that could be considered similar to a UMI reproduction (they have assigned numbers, are printed on demand, etc.), so they seem to require a different approach. For these, the best approach would be to catalog the Website and make reference to the reproduction in the 008, Form "r" and a 533. Still, there is a question as to the preferred inclusion/formatting of some of the fields, in particular, the 245 subfield $h GMD. The LCRI seems to provide the choice of including it or not. Is that correct? To make it less confusing for users, it would seem helpful to exclude "[electronic resource]". It is also not clear how many of the notes typically applied to a Website (538’s, 500 for date viewed, 516, etc.) would need to be recorded (or left in a derived record). How are other libraries handling these?

Answer: Policies for dealing with reproductions of all sorts have their origins in simpler times when it was often still possible to differentiate an "original" from a "reproduction". But as has been noted elsewhere many times, in the digital age, what were once relatively concrete lines are now nearly impossible to draw. In eras past, when people sat at a typewriter, they produced a typescript that could more or less accurately be thought of as an "original". Photocopies and microform copies could typically be identified as "reproductions". Today, when people sit at a keyboard, it is now more difficult to determine what is an "original": is it the word processed electronic document they have created, the printout made from the "print" command, the file converted to PDF format, or what? Furthermore, when one orders a "reproduction" from LC, UMI, or some other entity, it is far less possible to determine what generation of reproduction is received: is it a printout of an electronic file, a photocopy of a printout, a photocopy of a photocopy, or what? At best, one will be guessing.

All that being said, it seems that the situation described is roughly analogous to earlier sorts of "on demand" reproductions, and that it is not unreasonable to consider the PDF file to be the "original" for purposes of description in the body of the record. In field 533, describe the reproduction as "Printout," with the appropriate publication information for the entity responsible for the reproduction, the date of the reproduction, physical description of the reproduction, etc. If the assigned number is associated with the name of a series, present it as such, but otherwise, it should at least be included it in a subfield $n in field 533. Unless it can be identified it as some other sort of specialized number (STRN or the like) with its own 0XX field, include that number in a field 028 with first indicator "5" or in field 037, whichever seems more fitting to the situation. The PDF "original" would be described in the Fixed Field, except that "Form" (Books 008/23) would be coded "r" for "Regular print reproduction". Because the record represents the printout, there would be no GMD in field 245, there would be no field 006, and Computer File field 007 would be optional. In the body of the record, the 300 field could either be included or omitted for the remotely-accessible PDF original, depending upon which AACR2 9.5 option preferred for local application.

Regarding other 5XX fields, if an existing record for the PDF file is being used as the basis of the record for the reproduction, many of the notes (538 Mode of access, 500 Source of title with Description based on, 530 Additional formats available, etc.) could be left as they are, or edited, as appropriate. If creating a record from scratch, it would be appropriate to include any of those notes that would normally be included in a record for the PDF original. Include field 856 for the URL of the PDF original, with a second indicator of "1" because the record represents the printout, not the electronic original.

In addition to the ambiguities of provenance described earlier, the confusion is often further compounded by the constantly evolving nature of both technologies and cataloging rules. For now, catalogers can only hope against hope that RDA might clarify some of this and rationalize the treatment of such resources in the future.

Follow-up Question: When cataloging the reproduction, why is the 006 and 007 optional? Our institution codes the 007 for any record that has a link to a Website, which is also the plan for these DTIC reproductions. Is this not correct? Since they are reproductions of PDF files posted on the Web, would not the Computer File 006 be considered one of the required fields? The rationale is unclear for why some tags related to the e-version are left off and not others, so it is difficult to explain locally. One further question: our catalogers will most likely be following these guidelines, but there is some discussion locally as to whether it might be preferable to follow AACR2 and to ignore the LCRI on this particular question. If choosing this route, would it be a problem when cataloging for OCLC? Is it officially discouraged? Certainly there are records in OCLC from some who do not pay close attention to the OCLC guidelines, but it was somewhat surprising that some of those who replied to the initial question claimed that their libraries simply elected to ignore the LCRIs. Your response would definitely sway local decision making.

Follow-up Answer: Field 006 is used when the resource being cataloged has multiple aspects. Here, the electronic aspect belongs to the PDF original rather than to the printout being cataloged, so field 006 would not be necessary. Remember also that it is OCLC that has mandated the use of field 006 for resources that have an electronic aspect, mainly for its own indexing purposes. In MARC 21, use of field 006 is entirely optional (see <http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/nlr/nlr00x.html>). In the case of field 007, it may be included if desired, because one use of the field is to provide a coded "physical" description of the original PDF file. Including field 007 is a local decision.

I did not mention LCRI 1.11A in my answer because I inferred from the way you asked your questions that you had already decided to apply it and were mostly interested in details of doing so. The LCRI clearly allows catalogers a fair amount of leeway in deciding whether to apply it at all. As I have noted in the OLAC Newsletter 25:2 (June 2005), p. 38-39 ("Interpreting LCRI 1.11A" at <http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/june05/qanda.html>), when in doubt (especially in cases of simultaneous publication of analog and digital forms and when there is "inadequate information about the original on which to base a description"), the LCRI leans in the direction of not following it and simply applying AACR2 1.11 proper. Again, that is a local decision this needs to be carefully considered and documented.

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

Describing a Video and Accompanying Manual in Container

Question: What is the best/correct way to describe a video and an accompanying book in a container?
(1)     300       1 videocassette (62 min.) : $b sd., col. ; $c 1/2 in. + $e 1 manual, in container 30 x 24 cm.

(2)     300       1 videocassette (62 min.) : $b sd., col. ; $c 1/2 in., in container 30 x 24 cm. + $e 1 manual.

(3)     300       1 videocassette (62 min.) : $b sd., col. ; $c 1/2 in. + $e 1 manual $f container $g 30 x 24 cm.

(4)     300       1 videocassette (62 min.) : $b sd., col. ; $c 1/2 in. + $e 1 manual.
         500       In container 30 x 24 cm.
How open are the rules to interpretation?

Answer: Examples 2 and 4 are two of the most common means of expressing this situation, but there is also the possibility of describing the accompanying material in a note rather than in the physical description (following the guidelines in LCRI 1.5E1 regarding the character of that accompanying material). Also, remember that AACR2 1.5D2 stipulates the description of a container in the physical description is optional. As I read the rules for the physical description area, the description of a container would have to precede the description of any accompanying material (as in example 2). In extrapolating from other chapters, there is even an example to that effect in Rule 10.5E1 (first example). Less common, but still valid, would be the use of example 4, particularly if there were something important to say about the container in addition to its dimensions. As to example 3, in my experience, subfields $f and $g are usually used only for describing the units of archival materials.

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

Dates for Videorecordings Versus Dates for Audio Recordings

Question: This is a question about dates for sound recordings and videos. Is it the case that for sound recordings, the latest date is used to infer the publication date, even if it is taken from the container and not the disc label? On the other hand, this is not typically what is done for videos, since a copyright date from the screen or disc label--rather than the container--is preferred, even if it is not the latest date. For instance, in your book Cataloger’s Judgment (p. 26-27), one person had a CD with "p1995" on its label, and the dates "c1995, 1997" on the back of its container. She had found two records online with the date 1995 in them. Your advice was that she was justified in creating a new record with the date "[1997]" in it instead of using one of those records. Meanwhile, many current sources for cataloging videos emphasize how the chief source (the screen or disc label) takes precedence over other prescribed sources of information (e.g., the container), unless there are special circumstances. The OLAC Guide to Cataloging DVDs says to record the copyright date on the disc surface in the 260 and only to use the latest date on the container to infer date of publication if there is no date on the disc surface. In another of your articles, you also said that the chief source would generally be considered more important unless the date preceded the existence of the DVD technology, and in those cases, to use the date on the container to infer the date of publication. It seems that the chief source (disc label) generally takes precedence for videos, but this is not being applied the same way for sound recordings, where the latest date from any source is taken. Is this impression is correct and, if so, why this is the case? Is it because the container dates are used more often for packaging and artwork for videos? Again, this reading of the guidance may be a misinterpretation, but it seems that practice ought to be consistent for all resources, regardless of format.

Answer: At least two major differences between the publishing traditions of videorecordings and those of sound recordings come to mind to suggest why dates may appear to be regarded differently, but in the end, the practices coincide. For videos, the dates that are usually ignored are those identified specifically as related to package design and container art. Video publishers redesign packaging frequently without changing the video itself. (Think of it as analogous to a paperback book publisher changing the cover art of a bestseller every few months without changing the contents themselves.) For sound recordings, cover art tends to be relatively stable, so there is not a redesigned container every time the publisher produces another batch of the same audio CD. Hence, there is also not a different copyright date for cover art each time. Another difference is that for sound recordings, collections of previously released material tend to be more common ("best of", "greatest hits", and other sorts of compilations). Such compilations of video material are much less common, although especially in the DVD era, supplementary material ("making of" documentaries, interviews, and so on) published along with the main video contents, do make the situations more similar. In reality, though, the principles behind the practices are not all that different. When there is a later date on a container that is not associated with such ephemera as package or cover design, it can at least be used to infer a date of publication for a video or a sound recording under many circumstances. As usual, it is hard to generalize. For instance, if the date on the surface of a DVD is that of the feature film alone, but a later container date reflects the presence of supplementary video material, the latter could make sense as an inferred date of publication. Likewise, if the date on an audio CD surface is the phonogram copyright ("p") date of the sound, but a later container date more accurately reflects the date the recording was actually released (because program notes have a later copyright ["c"] date, for instance), the later date makes sense as an inferred date publication. The practices are essentially similar.

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

Plates or Just Unnumbered Leaves?

Question: In some local oral history books at our institution, the pagination (or foliation--it is all on leaves) is quite variable from book to book. In most cases, the leaves are numbered only for the transcript portion. Following the transcript are leaves (without numbering) of photographs, copies of newspaper articles, short stories, letters, etc. Sometimes there is an index, which is also not numbered. My training is that plates need to fill two criteria: (1) they must be illustrative in matter; (2) they must break a sequence of numbering in the book. Since these books do not continue a pagination sequence into, or past the photographs, to the other printed matter, my contention is that they should not be recorded as plates in the 300. My co-worker disagrees, stating that the definition of plates just says that it does not form a part of either the preliminary or the main sequence of pages or leaves. What do you think?

Answer: The AACR2 definition of "Plate" reads as follows: "A leaf containing illustrative matter, with or without explanatory text, that does not form part of either the preliminary or the main sequence of pages or leaves". AACR2 2.5B9 reads as follows:
"Give the number of leaves or pages of plates (see Glossary, appendix D) at the end of the sequence(s) of pagination, whether the plates are found together or distributed throughout the publication, or even if there is only one plate. If the numbering of the leaves or pages of plates is complex or irregular, follow the instructions in 2.5B8.

        246 p., 32 p. of plates
        xvi, 249 p., [12] leaves of plates
        x, 32, 73 p., [1] leaf of plates
        xii, 24 p., 212, [43] leaves of plates

If the volume contains both leaves and pages of plates, give the number in terms of whichever is predominant.

        323 p., [19] p. of plates
        (Contains 16 pages and 3 leaves of plates)"

The corresponding LCRI 2.5B9, labeled "LC practice" however, reads: "Give the number of leaves or pages of plates after the paging if the leaves or pages of plates are numbered. If the leaves or pages of plates are unnumbered, give the number only when the plates clearly represent an important feature of the book. Otherwise, generally do not count unnumbered leaves or pages of plates".

With all of that as background, the answer may depend upon the extent, the character, and the importance of these unnumbered leaves. I should also note that, if these happen to be unpublished or manuscript resources (from your description, I could not really be sure), other rules besides AACR2 could be applied, and that goes beyond my realm of expertise. Following the LCRI, these unnumbered leaves would have to be "an important feature" of the resource, at the very least, in order to describe them in the 300 field; if they are incidental either in importance or in quantity, they might better be described in a note or even be ignored. If they cannot be construed as "illustrative matter," they should not be described in the 300, but may again be described in a note or be ignored.

Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section

Last updated: June 16, 2006
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/june06/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu