Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA)
Liaison Report
submitted by John Attig
Pennsylvania State University
The newly-appointed CC:DA Observer, Sophie Bogdanski of West Virginia University, was unable to attend the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia. I was asked to provide a report on CC:DA activities. My report will not deal specifically with the meetings in Philadelphia; the agenda for the meeting, as well as a report of actions taken, is available on the CC:DA Web pages at: <http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/>. Instead, I want to talk about the immediate future of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, as well as plans for the more distant future.
AACR, 2002 Revision and the 2003 Amendments Package
The 2002 Revision of AACR2 was published in September 2002. It contains, among other things, major revisions to Chapter 3 (Cartographic Materials) and Chapter 12 (now Continuing Resources). The introduction of integrating resources in the revised Chapter 12 is a very significant change to the rules, and I hope that all catalogers will take a look at the orientation materials such as those prepared by an OLAC CAPC Task Force.
The 2003 Amendments Package, on the other hand, is relatively modest, containing only a few minor modifications to existing rules. The most significant feature of the package will be a long-overdue revision of the index to the rules. The 2003 Amendments should appear in July or August 2003, and will be issued as replacement pages for the loose-leaf text of the 2002 Revision.
One set of revisions that was expected to appear in the 2003 Amendments will not in fact appear. The revisions to Chapter 9, which were to include the elimination of Area 3 (field 256) and further changes to the rules for physical description of electronic resources, were not completed in time. They will likely appear in the 2004 Amendments.
AACR3 — The Future of the Cataloging Rules
The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR has embarked on an ambitious program leading to a new edition of AACR, which is now being referred to informally, but publicly, as AACR3. JSC’s strategic plan will shortly be posted on the JSC Web site at <http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/> and work towards the new edition has already begun. Among the most significant features are:
- Incorporating FRBR terminology and concepts: JSC is working with a volunteer consultant, Pat Riva of McGill University, to analyze the terminology in AACR2 in the light of some of the terms and concepts in the IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Specifically, the FRBR terms work, expression, manifestation, and item are to be used in AACR in a manner consistent with their definitions in FRBR. The terms expression and manifestation are new to AACR, and the term work is already used appropriately; however, the term item in AACR is not consistent with the FRBR definition, and much discussion has been devoted to this question. A revised proposal will be considered by JSC in April and may be approved. However, the changes in terminology need to be coordinated with other, related revisions and are unlikely to be published for a few more years.
- Revised, conceptual introductions to the rules: JSC has determined that the General Introduction to the code, as well as the Introductions to Parts I and II, need to be significantly expanded to provide a conceptual background for the application of the rules. As a first step, Barbara Tillett of the Library of Congress drafted a statement of the principles underlying the rules. Subsequently, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) and the British Library prepared drafts of the revised introductions. Further progress has been delayed by the need to incorporate additional sections based on other initiatives (such as an explanation of the use of FRBR terminology described above). JSC will discuss methods for continuing this work at their meeting in April.
- Increasing consistency and reducing repetition in rules in Part I of the rules: In partial response to a recommendation from Tom Delsey and the JSC constituencies to reconsider the organization of Part I, JSC asked ALA to undertake a project to examine the consistency of rules across Part I, propose revisions to eliminate unnecessary inconsistencies, and to move general rules from Chapters 2–12 into Chapter 1. Once this process has been completed, it will be possible to determine (a) the extent of the special rules in Chapters 2–12, and (b) the exact types of material to which those special rules apply. In Philadelphia, CC:DA approved proposed revisions relating to Areas 2 (Edition) and 3 (Material-specific details); these proposals will be considered by JSC in April. Meanwhile, the CC:DA Task Force will be working on Areas 4 (Publication, distribution, etc.), 5 (Physical description) and 6 (Series). It will probably take another year or two before proposals for all of the areas have been drafted and approved, and I expect that publication of the changes will not take place until all of the revisions have been approved.
- Reconceptualizing the scope of Chapter 9 (Electronic Resources): In its discussions on revising Chapter 9, ALA suggested that the scope of the chapter has become part of the problem, that limiting the scope to a smaller class of materials (e.g., computer programs, games, online services) and providing rules to describe the electronic carrier aspects of digital versions in the chapter appropriate to those types of resources (i.e., digital maps in Chapter 3, digital sound recordings in Chapter 6). ALA and the British Library were asked to form a joint working group to examine this question and to prepare revision proposals. That Task Force was just formed and presented a preliminary report in Philadelphia; it hopes to have a final report for the June ALA meeting in Toronto, although the issues may be too complex to be solved quickly.
- Thorough revision of Chapter 21: Chapter 21 was the object of a number of recommendations from Tom Delsey in his Logical Analysis of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. JSC began with one specific recommendation, to reconsider the "Rule of Three" which artificially limits the number of added entries that a cataloger is instructed to make. In addition, JSC would like to restate the rules for choice of entry in terms of the relationships among entities that are listed in the Functional Requirements. JSC has prepared terms of reference and is looking for a consultant to do this work.
- Creating a new Part III on authority records: The Library of Congress has proposed that the current Chapters 22–25 on form of heading become the core of a new Part III of AACR, which would contain explicit instruction on creating authority records and would include rules for form of heading, for providing references from variant forms and related headings, and for providing other authority record content (e.g., numeric identifiers, notes). In a related activity, JSC’s Format Variation Working Group has prepared revisions to Chapter 25 (Uniform titles) which would include instruction for creating identifiers for not only works, but also for expressions and manifestations — again providing support for concepts from the Functional Requirements.
All of these initiatives add up to a significant revision of AACR2. While work on most of them is already underway, the various tasks are closely interrelated and therefore require considerable coordination. Although plans call for publication of the new edition by the end of 2005, this may be overly ambitious. In any case, it will be fascinating to watch the rule revision process over the next few years. These reports in the OLAC Newsletter should continue to give you a sense of how things are progressing.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA)
Cataloging and Documentation Committee
Liaison Report
submitted by Sueyoung Park-Primiano
New York University Libraries
AMIA’s twelfth annual conference in Boston in November 2002 was a huge success. The comprehensive series of sessions and workshops put together by the Digital Issues Task Force (DITF) brought more attendance and broader participation from members of libraries and art museums.
Given the success of the conference in Boston and the ongoing importance of digital issues, the merging of the DITF and AMIA’s Digital Archives Interest Group to become the Digital Initiatives Committee (DIC) was proposed. An election was held in January 2003, which resulted in establishing DIC as a new Committee of the Membership. The elected committee co-chairs are Linda Tadic and Jim Lindner.
The new Committee’s mission is as follows:
The Digital Initiatives Committee is a mechanism for identifying key issues, contributing expertise, and implementing special projects that lead to recommended practices for digital concerns that impact the archival moving image and audio field. It works closely with the AMIA Preservation, Access, Cataloging and Documentation, and Education Committees, and with other relevant AMIA committees and groups to achieve these goals. The Digital Initiatives Committee shall inform the AMIA membership of developments in digital technology, preservation, access, and metadata through publications, projects, workshops, conference sessions, and recommended practices. It will represent its constituents’ concerns to related organizations through active liaison relationships.
Changes are afoot for the Cataloging and Documentation Committee (C&D) as well. Abigail Leab Martin has been elected the new Chair to succeed Jane Johnson. Johnson served as Chair for two of the most productive terms for the Committee. She established the Standards Review Subcommitee, and oversaw the revision of AMIM, the publication of the AMIA Compendium of Moving Image Cataloging Practice, and the development of the Moving Image Gateway project (now known as the Moving Image Collections or MIC).
Under the new Chair’s leadership, the Standards Review Subcommittee will continue its work, and the Website Subcommittee will be reshaping the C&D site <http://www.amianet.org/committees/CoM/Cataloging/cataloging.html> in coordination with MIC, particularly in the areas of education and outreach. Comments or suggestions are welcome.
A motion was put forward at the conference concerning the name of the C&D Committee. It was agreed by Committee members that the Moving Image Material Culture Interest Group was a more appropriate forum for addressing issues relating to documentation, especially since its members were quite interested in taking on those issues and it had been several years since any work on or extended discussion about documentation was carried out by the C&D Committee. With that in mind, it was proposed that the Committee be renamed the Cataloging Committee. Those present agreed that this change would better reflect both the activities and the focus of the Committee.
As mentioned before, the Moving Image Gateway (MIG) has been rechristened Moving Image Collections (MIC [pronounced "MIKE"]). This Library of Congress-AMIA collaborative project is moving forward with great momentum and 2003 promises to be an exciting and productive year for development.
MIC is a union catalog and portal for discovery of moving image resources for education and research, which will facilitate collaborative cataloging, preservation, programming, and digitization activities. In addition to the union catalog, it will include a cataloging facility, an education/outreach space, and an international directory of moving image repositories. The MIC Archive Directory pre-test phase has concluded and evaluation is in progress.
The MIC Project website is now up and running at <http://gondolin.rutgers.edu/MIC/>. This site provides alerts on new developments and documents past, current, and future work on the project. Recent additions to the website include MIC Development Milestones, MIC Technologies Overview and the MIC Union Catalog Draft Registry. As the actual MIC portal is developed, it will be available for ongoing review and will be accessible from the MIC project website. Georgia Tech, the portal designers, will host the MIC site.
Five humanities alpha implementer sites have been added to the original seven science alpha sites. These institutions have significant moving image collections in both analog and digital format and include the Library of Congress, Cable News Network (CNN), Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies, National Geographic Television, National Library of Medicine, Northeast Historic Film, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Pacific Film Archive, the Peabody Collection at the University of Georgia Libraries, the Prelinger Collection at the Internet Archive, ResearchChannel, the Smithsonian Institution, and Wisconsin Center for Film and Video Research.
The Library of Congress will host the Gateway. Developer sites are Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Georgia Institute of Technology, and the University of Washington. For more information, please contact Jane Johnson <jdj@ucla.edu>.
For more information on the conference, Committee projects, or general questions relating to AMIA, please feel free to contact me by email <syp3@nyu.edu> and/or visit the AMIA website <http://www.amianet.org/>.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Music OCLC Users Group (MOUG)
Liaison Report
submitted by Robert Freeborn
Pennsylvania State University
- Current Executive Board members
Chair: Ruthann Boles McTyre (University of Iowa)
Past Chair: Jean Harden (University of North Texas)
Treasurer: Ruth A. Inman (Kennedy-King College Library)
Secretary/Newsletter Editor: Stephen Luttman (University of Northern Colorado)
Continuing Education Coordinator: Marty Jenkins (Wright State University)
OCLC Liaison: Jay Weitz
- 2003 Annual Meeting
The MOUG annual meeting will be held Feb. 11-12, 2003 at the Renaissance Austin Hotel in Austin, Texas. Events of interest will include:
- A plenary session entitled "The Truth about CAT(aloger)s and DOG(ed Reference Librarian)s - Generating Symbiosis in the Relationship Between Public and Technical Services" by Stephen Luttmann and Kay Lowell (University of Northern Colorado), Jean Harden and Donna Arnold (University of North Texas), and Margaret Kaus (University of Tennessee, Knoxville).
- A breakout session containing two presentations: "MARS Authority Control" by Mickey Koth (Yale University); and "Cataloging Websites" by Robert Freeborn (Penn State University).
- An "Ask MOUG" session on technical services.
- NACO-Music Project working session.
For further information on MOUG conferences and other activities, please check out <http://www.musicoclcusers.org/>.
Return to Table of Contents
OCLC REPORTS
NEWS FROM OCLC
Submitted to OLAC for ALA Midwinter, January 2003
By Jay Weitz, OCLC
Changes to 245 Subfielding Practice
In MARC 21 Update No. 2 (October 2001), the Library of Congress made a subtle change to subfielding practice for field 245, allowing subfield $n ("Number of part/section of a work") and subfield $p ("Name of a part/section of a work") to follow subfield $b ("Remainder of title") as well as precede it. Appropriate adjustments have been made to both the PDF and HTML versions of Bibliographic Formats and Standards, 3rd ed. and will be included in the next set of print revision pages. For details, see OCLC System News.
OCLC-MARC Format Update 2002
The OCLC-MARC format changes announced in Technical Bulletin 247 "OCLC-MARC Format Update 2002" <http://www.oclc.org/technicalbulletins/247/> became effective December 1, 2002. In addition to the bibliographic format changes and the newly defined codes, users should follow the new practices for coding field 041 ("Language Code") and for cataloging integrating resources that are outlined in TB 247. Please see Technical Bulletin 247 and OCLC System News for additional details.
DVD Code "v" for 007 Subfield $e
On December 1, 2002, a new code "v" specifically for DVD format videorecordings was implemented for the Videorecording 007 field subfield $e (007/04). The new code "v" is to be used to identify all DVD videos. DVDs use the digital PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) technique to represent video information on a grooveless, smooth, round plastic disc. Most DVDs are 4 3/4 inch in diameter, although some smaller 3 inch discs have also been commercially produced. DVDs have been commercially available only since 1996. The existing Videorecording 007 subfield $e value "g," previously defined as "Laser optical (reflective) videodisc," has been redefined more narrowly as "Laserdisc." Code "g" is now to be used only for videodiscs that use the analog PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) technique to represent video information on a grooveless, smooth, round plastic disc. Laserdiscs exist in three standard commercially produced sizes: 12, 8, and 4 3/4 inch. The 12 inch discs are the most common, typically used for movies. These analog laserdiscs became commercially available in 1978, but production declined rapidly after 1998 because of the success of the DVD digital format. The code "g" should no longer be used for DVDs.
"Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines" Revised
In conjunction with the December 1, 2002 implementation of new practices for cataloging integrating resources, OCLC’s "Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines" has been revised. See <http://www.oclc.org/connexion/documentation/type.htm>.
OCLC Connexion
Maintenance and Enhancements: OCLC continues monthly maintenance and quarterly enhancement installs to OCLC Connexion. Details may be found in the monthly install messages, Connexion News and the OCLC Connexion Enhancements page <http://www.oclc.org/connexion/enhancements/>. For more information about these enhancements, as well as other planned changes, see "What’s Next" on the OCLC Connexion Enhancements Web page <http://www.oclc.org/connexion/enhancements/upcoming.shtm>.
Windows 98 and NT Support to End June 30, 2003
OCLC will discontinue support for Windows 98 and NT 4.0 on June 30, 2003, at the time that Microsoft discontinues support. OCLC expects that applications will continue to work; however, no testing will be completed and no support will be offered for Windows 98 and NT 4.0 after this date. The OCLC Access Suite Applications System Requirements document <http://www.oclc.org/oclc/menu/suite/systemrequirements.htm> on the OCLC site has been updated to reflect this change.
Quality Control
For the first half of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002, the Quality Control (QC) Section received a total of 28,649 requests to change bibliographic records. This total also includes duplicate error reports. QC staff have manually merged 6,802 sets of duplicate records and have made changes and/or corrections to 4,894,696 bibliographic records in the WorldCat database, either manually or via macros, as well as corrected a total of 1,937,564 records via automated scans. In the past 18 months, more than 400,000 invalid LC class numbers have been modified or deleted. While there are still pockets of problems, users can rely more on the accuracy of the structure of LC class numbers they find in WorldCat. QC staff have also begun looking at ways to identify and modify records for fiction that are coded as non-fiction and will be modifying tens of thousands of records in the next few months. Staff completed a project to update the obsolete second indicator value blank to zero in field 053 in name authority records. Over 100,000 records were changed and contributed to the Library of Congress.
Database Enrichment
OCLC implemented enhancements to Database Enrichment functionality on September 22, 2002. The enhancements add additional fields to the list of fields that any cataloging user may add to a bibliographic record; expands the list of fields that any user may modify in an existing bibliographic record; and allows any user to add local subject headings (with a second indicator value of "4") to any cataloging record. The only restriction to these enhancements is that authenticated CONSER records cannot be modified.
Batch Processing
OCLC has updated its Website to include a section describing Batch Processing, which can be found at: <http://www.oclc.org/batchprocessing/>. In addition, a “Concise Batch Processing Guide” has been issued: <http://www2.oclc.org/batchprocessing/documentation/concisebatch/concisebatch.pdf>.
Metadata Capture
Batchload Redesign (Phase 2 of the Metadata Capture project) continues in the design and prototyping phases. This phase of the project will contain three GUI interfaces: Batch Services (BS) GUI, Process GUI, and the System GUI. The Batch Services GUI, the interface that will allow Database Specialists to create test set ups for their projects, is being tested by Batch Services. The Process Control GUI is the interface used to monitor the Batch Process Control System, view and control orders, control processes, produce reports, etc. The System GUI allows the system manager to view all system activities. All three GUIs have been prototyped and are being actively tested by OCLC staff. It is anticipated Batchload Redesign will be completed Summer 2003. Preliminary work on the creation of new Matching Algorithms (Phase 3 or the Metadata Capture effort) has begun. This effort requires close coordination with XWC (Extended WorldCat) searching and matching.
OCLC MARC Record Service (MARS)
Automated updating and correcting of form/genre headings is now available from OCLC MARS. Libraries can now have obsolete form/genre headings updated to the latest forms used in Guidelines on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction, Drama, Etc., 2nd ed., 2000. MARS also now provides authority control for the list of genre terms authorized by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for use in 655 fields. For more about MARS, see: <http://www.oclc.org/western/products/mars/>.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
ENHANCE SHARING SESSION
Led by Jay Weitz at ALA Midwinter
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January 26, 2003
[Editor's comment: these notes were compiled by Jay Weitz, based on notes ("much-appreciated"-JW) by Frieda Rosenberg, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. They were originally posted on the Enhance List and are included here as a new feature of the OLAC Newsletter, on the premise that many OLAC members are either Enhance participants or considering applying for Enhance status. Even if not, the issues raised at these meetings often clarify coding standards and practice, which can be valuable in its own right.]
OCLC Enhance participants gathered during the American Library Association Midwinter Conference in Philadelphia on Sunday, January 26, 2003. Roughly forty people were in attendance. Enhance Coordinator Jay Weitz moderated the meeting.
Highlights from the handout "News from OCLC" were pointed out. Several additional pieces of news were announced.
In the week before ALA Midwinter, one advance question was posted to the Enhance list. The question and answer were read and discussed.
Question: My library has enhance status for Books. Due to the changes a couple of years ago, electronic resources that are primarily textual in nature are now coded "a" in the Type fixed field. Because of our enhance status, we can lock and replace these records. However, older records have Type "m" even though they are textual in nature. The only way we can figure out to Enhance these is by requesting a Type change from OCLC, then waiting for the change to take place. We have also considered applying for Enhance status for electronic resources, but I'm not sure we do enough cataloging of those. And even if we did, I assume we couldn't change the Type anyway. I'd be interested in knowing how other institutions are dealing with this conundrum and if OCLC has any suggestions.
Answer: Type Code changes to master records can be done only here at OCLC. (All authorizations, Limited and above, can change Type Codes locally on unlocked records, but that capability is to assist local workflows only; actual Type Code changes should continue to be reported to OCLC.) We try our best to process Type Code changes as quickly as we can, so as not to hold up your work. There are a number of Enhance participants who are authorized for both Books and Computer Files, and that is certainly a viable choice. Those records that, under current practices, should be coded Type "a" rather than "m" should be corrected in any case, and we encourage users to report them to OCLC. As LC, RLG, and OCLC make preparations to fully implement the new Bibliographic Level "i" for integrating resources (currently unscheduled, but no earlier than July 2003), the impact on Enhance will be a topic to consider. In addition, we are hoping that the transition OCLC is gradually making toward its new Oracle-based platform will mean greater flexibility in the capabilities of OCLC authorization levels. We will keep you informed as we know more.
In follow-up discussion, Enhance participants were implored not to add duplicate records in such cases, but to report Type Code changes. Integrating resources continue to be coded as monographic (BLvl "m") according to the MARC 21 Update and AACR2 2002 Rev. implemented on December 1, 2002 and will continue to be so coded until the full implementation of BLvl "i". Serials that happen to be integrating resources would currently continue to be handled by CONSER participants.
DVD Code "v" for 007 Subfield $e
On December 1, 2002, a new code "v" specifically for DVD format videorecordings was implemented for the Videorecording 007 field subfield $e (007/04). The new code "v" is to be used to identify all DVD videos. DVDs use the digital PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) technique to represent video information on a grooveless, smooth, round plastic disc. Most DVDs are 4 ¾ inches in diameter, although some smaller 3-inch discs have also been commercially produced. DVDs are usually identified by the term or trademark DVD, DVD VIDEO, or VIDEO CD (the standard compact disc logo with "DIGITAL VIDEO" below it). DVDs have been commercially available only since 1996. A typical DVD will be coded and described as such:
007 v $b d $d c $e v $f a $g i $h z $i s
300 1 videodisc (99 min.) : $b sd., col. ; $c 4 3/4 in.
538 DVD, Dolby digital stereo.
The existing Videorecording 007 subfield $e value "g," previously defined as "Laser optical (reflective) videodisc," has been redefined more narrowly as "Laserdisc." Code "g" is now to be used only for videodiscs that use the analog PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) technique to represent video information on a grooveless, smooth, round plastic disc. Laserdiscs exist in three standard commercially produced sizes: 12, 8, and 4 ¾ inches. The 12-inch discs are the most common, typically used for movies; they are usually identified by an LD trademark (with the phrase "LASER DISC" or "Laser Vision" below the LD trademark), LASER VIDEODISC, DiscoVision, LaserDisc, LaserVision or a similar phrase. Much less common are the 8 and 4 ¾ inch discs, typically used for music videos or other short video programs; these are usually identified by the term or trademark CDV (CD VIDEO), VSD (VIDEO SINGLE DISC), or LD (LASER DISC). These analog laserdiscs became commercially available in 1978, but production declined rapidly after 1998 because of the success of the DVD digital format. The code "g" should no longer be used for DVDs. Enhance participants authorized for Visual Materials format should pay special attention to this coding. As a follow-up to this coding change, OCLC staff has been updating coding for DVDs so that the format limiters and display icons for WorldCat in FirstSearch will work correctly. As staff works through this cleanup, they are seeing newly entered records for DVDs that are coded incorrectly. Most frequently, the record clearly describes a DVD in terms of the 300 field and 5xx notes that refer to the special features of the DVD but the 007 field contains coding for a VHS videocassette. In other cases, staff is seeing new records for DVDs that have probably been derived from existing records for videocassettes but the content of the record has not been completely updated (resulting, for example, in a 300 field that describes a 1/2 inch videodisc). For a cataloger using a constant data record to supply the basics of coding for a DVD record, please check to be sure that record has been updated to reflect this new coding practice. And, for deriving a new record from an existing one, please take a moment to review the entire record before adding it to WorldCat.
The newly retitled "Enhance Participants List" <http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/enhance/participants.shtm> has also been redesigned to be easier to read. Each participating institution has its own row, with all of its authorized bibliographic formats listed, rather than a separate row for each format. National Level Enhance is now indicated with a circle symbol following the appropriate format.
Following these announcements, the floor was opened to questions and information sharing. [Editor's note: a bold (A) has been inserted here to indicate the point at which Jay began his response.]
Language of notes
Treatment of records with notes in languages other than English was questioned. (A) OCLC has previously told users to remove non-English language notes, create English language notes as appropriate, and delete the language code subfield $b in field 040. Where the non-English language notes are not useful, as is often the case with vendor records, users should continue to follow this practice. When the non-English language notes are deemed to be substantive (please use judgment), OCLC would now prefer that they be allowed to remain in the master record and that English language notes be added, as needed. Catalogers need not feel obligated to duplicate each note. When leaving non-English language notes, also leave the subfield $b in field 040. This new preference is in anticipation of the possibility of OCLC being able to offer multiple language views of records in the future. The details of such a potential capability are a long way off at this point.
Search qualifiers
The possibility of a search qualifier for electronic resources was raised. (A) Currently, the "COM" qualifier will retrieve records in Type "m" and records with a Computer File 006 field. In the future system to which OCLC is currently moving, the intention is that search capabilities will be greatly enhanced.
Two issues related to duplicate records
- British Library (UKM) records containing ISBNs that duplicate other records were brought up. (A) Many of these will be eliminated when OCLC next runs the Duplicate Detection and Resolution (DDR) software for Books, since UKM records represent a statistically large portion of DDR merges. OCLC ran DDR briefly during August and September 2002, but stopped it after discovering discrepancies in the record retention hierarchy. OCLC has been testing the fix to the software and hopes to be able to run DDR again soon.
- Given a choice between a UKM record and a PCC program record, the question was raised about which should be Enhanced. (A) Generally Enhance the highest quality record, the one that needs the least work. Remember that the DDR retention hierarchy takes into consideration such elements as field 042 codes, Encoding Level, Source Code, and the creation of the record by such national libraries as DLC and NLM. UKM records are fairly low on the retention hierarchy and so will be merged away more frequently than PCC records, which are relatively high in the hierarchy.
As a follow-up, it was asked how a DLC Core-Level record could replace a PCC Full-Level record, even when the Full-Level record might have more subject headings than the Core record. (A) Even the most intricately constructed algorithms have to be based on general assumptions about the quality and fullness of records as represented by such things as coded information. Of course, these general assumptions may not hold in every individual case. Everyone has seen records where the Encoding Level does not accurately reflect the quality or fullness of the record.
Core records, cont.
A discussion of the Core concept ensued when it was pointed out that, although administrators may like the Core idea as a potential time and money saver, catalogers may feel that they are using it reluctantly. Many catalogers do not like to omit potentially useful information, and so once again, Encoding Level and/or the presence of "PCC" in field 042 may or may not always reflect the actual fullness of a record. Remember that the Core standard is intended to be a "floor" and that it is often the case that a Core record will be more full than the standard calls for. Further discussion of the whole Core concept might be something Enhance participants will want to pursue on the Enhance list.
UKM coding of 650s
A final question concerned UKM records that contained subject heading fields with second indicator "4". (A) In recent years (and especially now that it has adopted MARC 21 over UKMARC), the British Library is supposed to have changed its coding practices. Catalogers may change any second indictors "4" to "0" as appropriate in UKM records after checking the authority file.
Return to Table of Contents
NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
Barbara Vaughan, Column Editor
SUMMARY/ABSTRACT TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
OLAC/CAPC is very pleased to announce that the Summary/Abstracts Task Force Final Report, "Summary Notes for Catalog Records" is now available through the OLAC Website at: <http://www.olacinc.org/capc/summnotes.html>.
The information contained in a summary note helps catalogers and users find audio-visual materials and understand their content. This report provides catalogers with definitive guidelines for writing summaries for each specific type of format. Included in it are points regarding content, many examples of summary notes and a comprehensive bibliography.
Many thanks to the Task Force members for their diligent and thorough work:
Task Force members:
Sheryl Holmes, Chair, 2001-2002
Lisa Bodenheimer, Chair, 2002
Jeanette Ho
Rebecca Lubas
Sueyouong Park-Primiano
Virginia Rasbold
Additional support:
Gene Kinnaly
Karen Plummer
Robert Freeborn
[Originally posted by:]
Iris Wolley
OLAC/CAPC Chair
January 17, 2003
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
INTRODUCTION TO CATALOGING ELECTRONIC INTEGRATING RESOURCES:
AN ONLINE TRAINING PRESENTATION
The Cataloging Policy Committee of the Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc. (OLAC) is pleased to announce the availability of an online training presentation on cataloging updating Web sites and updating online databases according to the new rules for integrating resources that were published in the 2002 Revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules.
The presentation is a PowerPoint slide show consisting of a little over 100 slides. The presentation is available on the OLAC CAPC Web page at:
<http://www.olacinc.org/capc/ir.ppt>.
This online training presentation is meant to serve as an introductory overview to orient catalogers to the new AACR2 rules and MARC codes for integrating resources (IRs); it is not a detailed training tutorial. Keeping with the mission and scope of OLAC, the focus is on electronic IRs, with an addendum on what is distinctive for print IRs (loose-leafs).
The presentation includes the following:
- Definitions of new terms
- Brief cataloging highlights
- Overview of AACR2 2002 for electronic integrating resources (by area of description)
- MARC Leader and 006/008 codes for integrating resources
- Addendum on updating loose-leafs
- Concluding review
The presentation was developed by a Task Force of the Cataloging Policy Committee (CAPC). Its members include Steven Miller (chair), Kay Johnson, and David Reynolds. The group wishes to acknowledge that the content of this presentation was developed from a training presentation originally prepared for the Program for Cooperative Cataloging and that it reflects input from the directors and several members of the BIBCO and CONSER Programs. The group also wishes to thank the members of CAPC for their additional review and comments.
Technical note: the training presentation was created using PowerPoint. Your Web browser must have the appropriate plug-in to view the presentation. If using Netscape, click on the link and "Save File...". Use PowerPoint to view the presentation.
For further information or comments, please contact Iris Wolley, Chair, OLAC Cataloging Policy Committee <ilw2@cornell.edu> or Steve Miller, Chair, Integrating Resources Task Force <mll@uwm.edu>.
[Originally posted by:]
Steve Miller
Chair, CAPC Integrating Resources Task Force
February 11, 2003
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
SHEILA INTNER RECIPIENT OF THE 2003 NETSL AWARD
OLAC received early notice from Christina Bellinger (Vice-President/President-Elect of the New England Technical Services Librarians) that Dr. Sheila Intner is to be the recipient of the 2003 NETSL Award for Excellence in Technical Services. The award will be given at NETSL's Spring program on April 4.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
SPECIAL TOUR OF TORONTO PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR OLAC MEMBERS
Making travel plans for the summer ALA Conference in Toronto?
Include a special tour of the Toronto Public Library (789 Yonge St.), 3 p.m., Friday, June 20, for OLAC members. TPL is located at the corner of Yonge and Bloor -- a short subway ride from the Convention Center.
"The Toronto Public Library circulated 30 million books in 2002, more than any other library in North America and second only in the world to Hong Kong."
TPL has 98 branches. They claim to be the largest library in North America with the biggest budget. Ask your tour guide about their "best" statistics -- there are several.
On the second floor of the Toronto Public Library Reference Library is the Picture and Video Collection, which has 1 million images (postcards, clippings, etc.) and 15,000 educational and documentary videos (no feature films). On the 5th floor is the Performing Arts Department that contains the sound collection and a language listening centre.
To RSVP prior to June 6:
Meredith Horan
Cataloging Section
National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894
USA
voice: 301-435-7030
e-mail: horanm@mail.nlm.nih.gov
fax: 301-402-1211
Return to Table of Contents
BOOK REVIEWS
Vicki Toy-Smith, Column Editor
Cataloging the Web: Metadata, AACR, and MARC 21
Edited by Wayne Jones, Judith R. Ahronheim and Josephine Crawford
My colleagues headed for Chicago to the ALA Preconference on Metadata for Web Resources, July 6-7, 2000, with enthusiasm and excitement. This landmark event, jointly sponsored by the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA), the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging (CSSC), the Networked Resources and Metadata Committee (NRMC), and MARBI (the Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee), included 26 broad-ranging metadata topics described by knowledgeable presenters. This collection of papers from the preconference gives an overview of Web information control using metadata (i.e., data about other data).
Jennifer Younger introduces the text with, "Metadata and Libraries: What’s It All About?" She thoughtfully traces the caretaking of knowledge from the Alexandrian Library era to the cyber age. She focuses on changes in library catalogs and cataloging including: proliferation of metadata schemes; search engines; a wired, networked information environment; and library catalogs that link to full text. Library catalogs now have greater functionality with direct access to electronic resources and holdings. Metadata librarians and CORC contributors serve as the outreach force to promote the use and standards of metadata. Gateways, scholars’ portals, and partnerships highlight this new age where resource discovery is focused on a specific audience.
The remaining part titles best illustrate the composition of the text: "Cataloging the Web: AACR and MARC 21"; "Cataloging the Web: Other Approaches, Other Standards"; "Tools for Cataloging the Web"; "Digital Libraries: Practical Applications of the Standards"; "Conclusion: Where Are We? Where Are We Going?"
The body of this text presents viewpoints and offers instruction. Diane Boehr, Regina Reynolds, Rebecca Guenther and Elizabeth Mangan discuss metadata initiatives from our national libraries. Beth Picknally Camden, Constance Mayer, and William Fietzer give perspectives from the university environment. Jean Hirons reviews AACR2 and seriality. Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), Data Documentation Initiative (DDI), Encoded Archival Description (EAD), and crosswalks become familiar topics with the publication of Cataloging the Web. Michael Gorman, in the last chapter, speaks of trust and identity issues related to metadata creation.
I recommend a slow and careful reading of this work. The field is complex, new, and evolving. Metadata librarianships are now more visible, advertised and appointed to institutions more frequently.
This is essential reading for those who wish to become metadata librarians and a noteworthy reference for others. Curious librarians can use this as an instructional work to help understand the nomenclature and new acronyms. I recommend this work to archivists, library managers, library students, catalogers, Web designers, and computer experts.
Published in 2002 by: Scarecrow Press, Lanham, Md. (vii, 199 p.). ISBN 0810841436. $39.50.
Reviewed by: Meredith Horan
National Library of Medicine, NIH
Bethesda, Md.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Encoded Archival Description Tag Library, Version 2002
By Society of American Archivists and the Library of Congress
Encoded Archival Description Tag Library, Version 2002 supercedes the 1998 Version 1.0 of the tag library. Version 2002, like the previous volume, is a companion to the Society of American Archivist’s Encoded Archival Description Application Guidelines, Version 1.0. Where the latter volume is written in a more narrative form in order to facilitate understanding EAD and its implementation, the Tag Library, Version 2002 presents the elements and attributes needed by archivists and others needing to turn their finding aids into the encoded archival description (or EAD) structure.
The volume was prepared by the Encoded Archival Description Working Group of the Society of American Archivists and the Network Development and MARC Standards Office of the Library of Congress. While each group has worked together on this volume, each holds a different responsibility for its creation and continued use. The Encoded Archival Description Working Group is responsible for updating and editing the EAD Document Type Definition (or DTD) and the tag library. The Network Development and MARC Standards Office of the Library of Congress is responsible for maintaining the online EAD documentation and the EAD Website (located at <http://lcweb.loc.gov/ead/>).
Certain changes appear in this volume, which have grown out of the collaborative needs from the international use of encoding standards. The EAD Working Group needed to address these international standards in order to maintain compatibility in various parts of the EAD structure. Besides addressing international needs, the Working Group also made changes in some of the elements and attributes that users of EAD found needed improvement. These changes are outlined in the Preface.
The volume is arranged in a very useful way. The first section covers EAD attributes and the properties and values they cover. The main part of the volume is comprised of the extensive alphabetical listing of the EAD elements. Each attribute entry covers a description of the element, where it may fall, and what it may contain. For those writing up their EAD finding aids, the compilers include useful examples for each attribute and its use.
The volume concludes with four appendices. Appendix A charts the metadata "crosswalks" between EAD and MARC21 and with ISAD(G), the international metadata standard. Appendix B outlines those standards that were previously used in the DTD in Version 1.0 and are no longer recommended or are obsolete. Appendix C has the examples of finding aids outlined in Version 1.0 which are updated to the new version’s tags. The last appendix contains an alphabetical listing of element names and its equivalent name using the tag library nomenclature, easing the user’s confusion in finding the correct element to pick.
The Encoded Archival Description Tag Library, Version 2002 is an essential reference for archivists, librarians, and others using encoded archival description for their finding aids. The book is thoughtfully laid out, filled with the details of element use and examples of that use. Those who only have Version 1.0 of the tag library will want to update their bookshelves quickly with this volume.
Published in 2002 by: Society of American Archivists, Chicago. (314 pp.) ISBN 1-931666-00-8. $31.00 (SAA members $26.00)
Reviewed by Jacquelyn K. Sundstrand
Manuscript and Archives Librarian
Library Special Collections Department
University of Nevada, Reno
Return to Table of Contents
EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW
ABOUT AV CATALOGING --
PLEASE ASK!
Nancy B. Olson
The traditional OLAC question-and-answer session was held during ALA in Philadelphia on January 25, 2003. Panelists were Jay Weitz, Steve Miller, Verna Urbanski, Rob Freeborn and John Attig, with moderator Meredith Horan.
Streaming video
The first question: Is streaming video a video or an electronic resource? The short answer was "Yes."
Jay Weitz explained that he had taught cataloging of streaming video in the last several video workshops he has presented, and that he and I [Nancy Olson] had worked out the cataloging together about two years ago. [See the following article for concise guidelines.]
Cataloging is to be done on the video workform (type "g") with an 006 and 007 added for the electronic resource aspects. Field 538 is provided to indicate "Streaming video" and to include details about length, sound, color, etc. A second field 538 would give any necessary system requirements, such as the type of software needed to access the video.
The questioner went on to explain that a school district had the same title in VHS and in streaming video and wondered if they could use one record. Jay and John agreed that, in a shared environment (such as OCLC) these definitely called for separate records, but in a local system, one could treat the streaming video as a copy of the VHS.
Animated images
The second questioner has files that are animated images, and wanted to know what to call them for cataloging. Someone said these were an electronic version of the old "flip pages" that show movement.
This led to some discussion as to what to do with these. John said these were moving images, delivered electronically, so would be done on the type "g" workform with 006 for electronic resources. He did elaborate a bit on the fact that they are graphic images (still images), but designed to show movement so are cataloged as moving images.
This led to an extensive discussion of GMDs. The item is an electronic resource, so that is the GMD that must be used (and this applies to the streaming video as well, as someone pointed out).
There was more discussion about the complications of such material and the limitations of the rules and of the GMDs.
Legos, etc.
A facetious question about Lego sets that are added to, and are these integrating resources, led to a serious discussion about materials that can be one thing or another, depending on …
A Lego set, as purchased, is a toy within rules of AACR2. However, one may create original works of art using Legos. A collection of Legos that grows over time is not really an integrating resource.
Someone brought up the example of a can of Campbell’s soup which is realia, but the painting of a can of Campbell’s soup, by Andy Warhol, an exact reproduction of the can itself, is an art original (and reproductions of the painting are art reproductions).
LCRI 1.11A
Someone asked about video and streaming video and the LCRI for 1.11A, reproductions of works. This turned into a discussion of reproductions and multiple versions and the problems of dealing with such materials. There was no clear question, and there is no clear answer, but there seemed to be agreement that a streaming video is not a reproduction of a video within the meaning of LCRI 1.11A, nor is a DVD necessarily a reproduction of a VHS.
Return to Table of Contents
STREAMING VIDEO
by Nancy B. Olson
Streaming video is video available through the Internet. Because it is available through remote access, each streaming video title is cataloged as an electronic resource. Because it is video, the video workform is used. Rules from AACR2 Chapters 7 and 9 are used together.
The type "g" workform is used, with form of item coded "s" for electronic. The other fixed field/008 values are the usual ones for videos.
The MARC 21 field 007 for video is used, as are fields 006 and 007 for electronic resources.
The GMD in field 245 is $h [electronic resource]
Field 300 is not used, as these items are remote access electronic resources.
The first note (nature and scope note) would be:
500 Streaming video (length : sound characteristics, color characteristics).
A note for system requirements tells what program is needed to access the streaming video title being cataloged, and lists any other system requirement.
538 System requirements: Name of special software; any other requirements.
The required mode-of-access note:
538 Mode of access: World Wide Web [or whatever needed].
You also need the required note for source of title, and when the title was viewed:
500 Title from header on screen (viewed Nov. 28, 2002).
All the normal video notes are used as needed.
Field 856 is added for the URL for the title.
Jay Weitz and I worked out these guidelines when he was preparing to give a workshop at the MOUG meeting in February 2002. We have expanded them a number of times as questions arose. He handed out a great example at his workshop at the OLAC Conference in St. Paul that you may be able to access through the "conferences" link of the OLAC Website <http://www.olacinc.org/>.
An example of a record for streaming video
Type: g ELvl: I Srce: d Audn: Ctrl: Lang: eng
BLvl: m Form: s GPub: Time: 011 MRec: Ctry: azu
Desc: a TMat: v Tech: l DtSt: s Dates: 2000,
006 [m z ]
007 c $b r $d c $e n $h u
007 v $b z $d c $e z $h u
245 00 Navajo rug weaving $h [electronic resource] / $c Tad Nichols.
260 [Flagstaff, Ariz. : $b Northern Arizona University], $c c2000.
500 Streaming video (10 min., 17 sec. : si., col.).
538 System requirements; RealPlayerG2.
538 Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500 Title from header on screen (viewed Nov. 28, 2002).
520 Silent movie, with intertitles, shows all the steps involved in weaving a Navajo rug, including shearing the sheep, cleaning and dying the wool, spinning the yarn, preparing the loom, weaving the rug, and removing the rug from the loom.
700 1 Nichols, Tad.
710 2 Northern Arizona University.
856 40 $u
http://www.nau.edu/library/speccoll/exhibits/traders/trade/index.html
Return to Table of Contents
Last modified: June 23, 2004
URL: http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/mar03.html
HTML version created by Sue Neumeister (neumeist@buffalo.edu)
Return to OLAC Newsletter index