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

OLAC CATALOGER’S JUDGMENT
Jay Weitz


Computer File 007/01 Coding for Rewritable CDs and DVDs

Question: The scope note for the Computer File 007, subfield $b, code "m" in MARC21 for Bibliographic Data indicates it is "an erasable or semi-erasable storage medium, similar to a CD-ROM disc, capable of storing data at a very high density". Can you verify that this code should be used for a CD R/W? This disc is written to and read from using a laser beam that is used to heat the recording surface to a point at which regions of the surface of the disk become magnetically aligned to store bits of data. Would "m" therefore apply to non-audio CDs (optical discs) that can be written and rewritten and also to non-audio CDs that can be written only once, in contrast to CD-ROMs coded as "o"? Would "m" also be applied to rewritable non-video DVDs?

Answer: Several readers, most notably Bryan Baldus of Quality Books Inc. and Suzanne Pilsk of the Smithsonian Institution, correctly questioned my faulty original answer to this question on the OLAC List, which read:
"As I read the definitions for the codes in the Computer File 007 subfield $b (007/01), code ‘m’ would seem properly to apply to non-audio CDs and non-video DVDs that are either read/write or write once only."
Clearly, I had jumped to some incorrect conclusions in that response, and was prompted to do some additional and more careful research. I had been blinded by the statement in the definition of code "o" that "... these discs are usually a read-only medium" whereas the original question was specifically asking about read/write and write-once media. In the course of my research, I concluded that the brief definitions of codes "m" and "o" in MARC 21 may not have kept up with rapidly changing and forever proliferating technology (no surprise there). Some distinctions that catalogers once thought could be made may no longer be as clear. In particular, the statement in the "optical disc" definition that "these discs are usually a read-only medium" is no longer accurate--if it ever was. Among the many resources I have examined and have pilfered information from are: It seems that, in discussing erasable, read/write, and/or write-once CD and DVD media, there is actually a growing cluster of different types of discs that employ different types of technologies of varying compatibility; this includes, but is hardly limited to: CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW, and DVD-RAM. As should be crystal clear from my over-hasty original answer, I am no expert on these technologies. The following paragraphs include some of what I have gleaned from my research.

There appear to be three major recording technologies involved here: If I am reading these definitions correctly (always an iffy proposition), in MARC terms, media that use "dye-sublimation" and "phase-change" techniques appear to fit under code "o" for "optical discs" and media that use "magneto-optical" techniques fit under code "m" for "magneto-optical discs". Again, culling from the aforementioned sources, here is my determination: In summary, most erasable, read/write, and/or write-once CD and DVD media should be coded "o" in the Electronic Resource 007/01.


006 and/or 007?

Question: In cataloging a book with accompanying transparencies, I have coded the transparencies in the 007 (with their description contained in subfield $e of 300). However, I am re-considering this decision, thinking, perhaps, that they should have been coded in the 006. What is your interpretation in the different use of 007 vs. 006?

Answer: Fields 006 and 007 are not mutually exclusive. In many cases, such as this one, both could be used. Because the transparencies are accompanying material and not the main content, however, both the 006 and 007 are optional, helpful though they may be. As you have no doubt noticed, there is some redundancy between the two fields, but they really do serve different purposes within MARC. Fields 007 are intended to be coded extensions of the physical description--color, dimensions, support material, etc. (hence the name "Physical Description Fixed Field"). Fields 006 are extensions of the Fixed Field (Leader and 008), usually intended to give access to secondary aspects of a resource ("Additional Material Characteristics")--the electronic resource-ness of a text on the Web, for instance. OCLC uses many 006 and 007 elements and values to help assign what we call administrative "document types" and "material types" of a record for indexing, matching, and identifying purposes.


STEMRA, the Dutch Musical Performing Rights Organization

Question: I am cataloging a music CD collection. On the disc and box is a term within a box. The term is STEMRA, and it is located near the DDD (in a box) on both the CDs and box. Any assistance would be helpful in determining what STEMRA is.

Answer: STEMRA is the Dutch musical performing rights organization for composers, lyricists, and music publishers. Its Website <http://www.bumastemra.nl> is unfortunately (if understandably) in Dutch, but you can find a brief English description on the Web at "The CD Factory" <http://www.cdfabriek.nl/cdfactory/buma_stemra.htm>.


Change of Sound Characteristics Between VHS and DVD

Question: In cataloging a program on DVD that previously came out on VHS, does a change in the soundtrack constitute a change in the item such that the 008 date would be an "s" for the copyright or packaging date of the DVD? The converse view would be that this is not a significant change in content, and therefore a "p" date, reflecting the previous manifestation, would be used. An example is a Biography (A&E) program which appeared in 1995 on VHS, not in stereo. It is my contention that, since the DVD is clearly marked "Dolby digital stereo" sound, the program is significantly changed. Therefore, the previous VHS manifestation should be given in a 500 note, but the single date of 2005 should be used.

Answer: It is my observation that catalogers have tended to be spotty about including mono/stereo information in records for videos, especially those from the pre-DVD era. So unless one has both the VHS and the corresponding DVD in hand (or an existing VHS record happens to be clearly specified), one really does not know for sure if there has, in fact, been a change from mono to stereo. That said, I would lean in the direction of not considering such a change alone to be the sort of change in content that would justify a DtSt (008/06) code "s".

Transcribing and Tracing Corporate Entities for Videos

Question: In LCRI 21.29D, under "Audiovisual materials", catalogers are instructed to "... make added entries for all openly named persons or corporate bodies who have contributed to the creation of the item, with a few exceptions given. There is further instruction to "... make added entry headings for all corporate bodies named in the publication, distribution, etc. area". A colleague contends that every production company named is, therefore, to be traced. At our institution, this involves making name authority records for personal or corporate entities that lack them. My contention is that the rule as stated is ridiculous in application to many video titles where the following verbiage is not uncommon: "‘PorchLight Entertainment’ in association with ‘Videal’ presents a ‘PorchLight Pictures’ production", or, "‘Drop of a Hat’ presents a ‘Red Barn/Andrew Upjohn’ and ‘Hat Factory Studios’ production, in association with ‘Clear Pictures’ and ‘Red Farm Films’", or, "‘PorchLight Entertainment’ presents a ‘PorchLight Pictures’ production in association with ‘Edgewood Studios’ and ‘Videal’". My feeling is that tracing each of these entities is similar to tracing the printer, typesetter, color separator, etc. for a book. Leaving aside for a moment the conundrum of "separate" corporate entities that occupy the same street address ("PorchLight Entertainment" vs. "PorchLight Pictures"--or better yet, the many manifestations of "PPI" and "Goldhil"), my opinion is that just because they are named in the credits does not mean they have anything approaching overall responsibility for the program carried by the disc or tape being cataloged. My colleague disagrees with my opinion. I might note that, although the assembled wisdom of AUTOCAT, the OLAC-List and OCLC-CAT generally comes down on the side of tracing everything in sight, records found in the utilities suggest that these catalogers either do not follow their own interpretations or they are not the ones contributing records to the utilities. Even in cases where a record has a profusion of tracings, most of the tracings are not related to any name authority record. Frankly, I do not see how overloading the database with tracings that will never be utilized (for instance, "Greystone Communications", "Pangolin Pictures, Inc.", "What If Productions (Firm)", "Alba Communications (Firm)"--all four of which, along with tracings for the "History Channel", "A&E", and "New Video"--were made on one record) serves users well or enhances the quality of the cataloging appreciably.

Answer: Regarding corporate entities associated with AV materials, LCRI 21.29D has always been one of those rule interpretations that appears to be more helpful than it really is in practice (precisely because of the sorts of questions raised here). And that has only been exacerbated by the proliferation of credits surrounding theatrical films in particular, which often seems to have more to do with financing, egos, and union rules than with what catalogers so quaintly insist on calling "intellectual responsibility". I tend to agree with the analogy relating all those mysterious production credits to book printers, typesetters, and so on. The problem is that catalogers have no reliable way of knowing which entity has responsibility for what, and so cannot judge what is really important and what may be less so. Neither the rules nor the LCRIs for 21.29 and 21.30 generally are much help, either, except that catalogers can choose to invoke the so-called "rule of three" in 21.30A1, transcribing and tracing only the first of the myriad corporate entities that clutter so many opening credits nowadays.

It would be so good if there were clear guidelines about which such entities are worth acknowledging and which can be ignored. Unfortunately, there are no such guidelines, and the best that one can suggest is to use judgment, which is really no help at all. For those of the obsessive persuasion, transcribing and tracing everything in sight offers a certain satisfaction and (within reason) does not seem to violate the rules. For those who prefer to be selective (for reasons of time, money, resources, and/or sanity, among others), one could meekly suggest certain tentative criteria for inclusion. Please understand that these suggestions have no force of "law" or explicit justification in any rules; they are merely my personal suggestions for those who may want to exercise cataloger’s judgment. Concentrate on entities that are identified directly as "presenting" and "producing" and set aside those that are identified as "in association with" and other such implications of subordination. If any relationships among named entities can be determined, and if the presentation of the credits allows, opt for transcribing and tracing only the highest/broadest named entity in a hierarchy. If there is a way to differentiate one-time entities created solely for a particular film from ongoing entities that did have and will have a continuing life, that could be another criterion for choice. Do not be afraid to make exceptions in special cases (regarding both inclusion and exclusion).

Aside from these ideas, I am not sure what else I can say. Most institutions will need to make some sort of decision about how much detail and access to provide in such cases, depending especially upon the needs of their own users. Clearly, the library of a film school will want to offer much more than, for instance, a library with just a small collection of popular DVDs, for instance.


Subfields for TV Season, Episode, and Disc Numbering

Question: Is there something written specifically spelling out the cataloging of television episodes, or seasons or discs of a season? Here are examples of what can be found in the utilities:
245   00   Seinfeld. $n Season 2, $p Disc 2, Episodes 1-5

245   00   Seinfeld $h [videorecording] : $b Season 1
520         Contains episodes 1-5 from the 1st season of Seinfeld.

245   00   Seinfeld. $p Season 1

245   00   Smallville. $p The complete fourth season disc 1

245   00   Smallville. $n The complete second season

245   00   Smallville. $p Season 1. $n Disc two, Episodes 5-8

245   00   Smallville. $n The complete third season [disc 3]
What is the correct practice for presenting the subfield information?

Answer: For the simple season, disc and episode numberings, there is no doubt that these should appear in subfields $n. There is also little doubt that such "multiple alternative numberings" as "Disc 2, Episodes 5-8" belong in a single subfield $n. That is, Disc 2 is Episodes 5-8, that both numerical designations are coextensive. The major question is how to consider such formulations as "The complete first season". MARC21 says: "Numbering is defined as an indication of sequencing in any form, e.g., Part 1, Supplement A, Book two". Considered narrowly, phrases such as, "The complete first season", do, indeed, indicate sequence (plus a little more). Therefore, my inclination would be to regard them as such and put these in subfield $n, also. The following are my subfield and punctuation suggestions for the instances given above:
245   00   Seinfeld. $n Season 2. $n Disc 2, Episodes 1-5
                [This example is a bit puzzling, if accurate, because if disc 2 contains episodes 1-5, what is on disc 1?]

245   00   Seinfeld. $n Season 1 $h [videorecording]
520         Contains episodes 1-5 from the 1st season of Seinfeld.

245   00   Seinfeld. $n Season 1

245   00   Smallville. $n The complete fourth season. $n Disc 1

245   00   Smallville. $n The complete second season

245   00   Smallville. $n Season 1. $n Disc two, Episodes 5-8

245   00   Smallville. $n The complete third season. $n [Disc 3]

"Unpublished" Materials

Question: I am fairly new to cataloging videos, sound recordings, CD-ROMs, etc., but I am learning. I have a stack of videotape cassettes to catalog. A lot of them are recordings of college functions, events, celebrations, etc., which appear to be in-house productions, but that fact is not made clear. How does one tell whether such a video is "published" or "unpublished"? I know that if it is not published, only the date is given in the imprint field. However, it is difficult to determine its publication status. Any guidelines would be greatly appreciated.

Answer: As far as I am aware, there is really no formal definition of "unpublished" in AACR2. The closest that AACR2 comes to a definition is the following, which appears with some variations in 1.4C8, 1.4D8, and 1.4F9: "... unpublished items (e.g., manuscripts, art originals, naturally occurring objects that have not been packaged for commercial distribution, unedited or unpublished film or video materials, stock shots, non-processed sound recordings, unpublished electronic resources)". Not that this explication answers this question very well. Regarding "non-processed sound recordings", there is a slight elaboration--one that comes closer, perhaps, to a definition--in Footnote 2 of Rule 6.4C2: "… a noncommercial recording that generally exists in a unique copy". For cataloging, the term "unpublished" usually indicates an item that is not commercially available and that exists as a unique copy or as one of a small number of copies intended for limited distribution. For videorecordings, specifically, OCLC offers some cataloging guidelines in Bibliographic Formats and Standards, Section 3.7, "Locally Made Videorecordings" (p. 39 in print; <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/specialcataloging/default.shtm> in the Web version). Videos of local events such as those listed in the question are prime examples of things likely to be unpublished.


Notes Identifying Recordable DVDs

Question: Do you have a position on recorded DVDs? "Films for the Humanities" is releasing many of its titles on DVD, but so far, they are all DVD-Rs. My opinion is that it is important to make note of this information in the bibliographic record, at the very least in the 538 field, although our institution is doing more than that in the local catalog. However, it seems as if catalogers outside our institution are not all including this level of information in their records. Is it kosher for us to go to this extent? Here is what the catalogers in our institution are putting in the record, as well as what will be given in our original/upgraded records, if you agree:
538     DVD-R
        or
538     DVD+R
        or
538     Recorded DVD [this if it is not clear which technology was used]

              and the note:

500     This disc is a recorded DVD and may not play on all DVD players or drives.
Answer: Not only is this kosher, but I would highly recommend including both the specific erasable/rewritable/whatever DVD technology in 538 when known, and also the appropriate caveat about compatibility.


Different Publishers or Entities in a Hierarchy?

Question: Our library has been receiving DVDs from both "PBS Video" and "PBS Home Video" of the same titles that contain the exact same content. According to the authority records, "PBS Home Video" replaced "PBS Video" in 1994; however, according to the PBS Web page (accessed in 1997): "‘PBS Home Video’ and ‘PBS Video’ are two different co-existing entities; ‘PBS Video’ serves the education market". A recent check of the PBS Website (in late 2005) shows that it still makes this claim. Indeed, each of the authority records for these entities has a 5xx reference to the other name. Still, it would seem correct to treat these two as distinct entities and use separate records for them. However, an OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards (BF&S) instruction says: "Variation in choice of a publisher when the publishers are part of the same organization (e.g., ‘Puffin’ vs. ‘Penguin’)" does not justify a new record." The reasoning behind this guideline is not exactly clear, but the example that BF&S uses seems to be a different type of case, where one name is an imprint of the publisher, not a separate entity. If you could clarify the BF&S instruction, it could help catalogers decide if using separate records to catalog titles from "PBS Video" vs. "PBS Home Video" is correct in this context.

Answer: With the ever-growing phenomenon of consolidation in the publishing industry, the question of what exactly is a "different publisher" has become more and more difficult to determine. The intention of the OCLC guideline cited above was intended to reflect differences in cataloger’s judgment when choosing between different elements within the same publishing hierarchy, all of which are named in the item, to be the publisher named in field 260. The case of "PBS Video" and "PBS Home Video" is somewhat unusual because both of the respective authority records (n81062763 and no94021892) and the Website <http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_beyond.html> note the independent existence of the two entities ("‘PBS Home Video’ markets and distributes programs on videocassette and DVD to consumers, and ‘PBS Video’ is the leading source of top-quality video and related products for classrooms, libraries, and workplaces"). Although I do not know this for a fact, I suspect that each individual video usually cites either one or the other as publisher, but rarely if ever includes mention of both entities, nor presents the two in a hierarchical relationship. Therefore, the practice of creating separate records for publications of "PBS Video" and of "PBS Home Video" is correct.


Distributor Data on a Sticker

Question: On a videocassette of "Scarface" starring Paul Muni, the container’s logo indicates that the item should be the "MCA Universal Home Video" version that was issued in 1991. The copyright information gives the company name as "MCA Home Video, Inc." and MCA’s address is listed as Universal City, California. According to the OCLC authority file, "MCA Universal Home Video" and "MCA Home Video" are two separate entities. The publishers, the ISBN, the publisher number and the UPC on the box all match the information given in the national bibliographic record. Unfortunately, there is also a sticker pasted to the bottom of the box stating: "Exclusively manufactured and distributed by ‘Universal Studios Home Video Canada’, a division of ‘Universal Studios Canada’". The videocassette case gives a copyright date of 2002 for "Universal Home Video" and gives the company’s address as Willowdale, Ontario. The opening frames of the film show an MCA Home Video logo, followed by the Universal globe logo with "an ‘MCA Company’ release" printed underneath it. It is not clear whether the existing record for the 1991 edition should be used, tweaking it with some notes for the local catalog or if a new record should be created for the Canadian 2002 edition. If it is preferable to create a new record, how should the misleading information on the box be treated? Perhaps a 590 local note could be inserted and 02x fields added after the new record is loaded into our system.

Answer: The situation described is pretty sticky, and, when in doubt, it is always good to remember that one option available to the cataloger is to edit an existing record locally. Still, as I read the various rules and rule interpretations for 1.4D, 1.4F, 7.4D, and 7.4F, I think any cataloger would be justified in adding a new record, especially given the time gap between the 1991 publication and the 2002 manufacture and distribution. Check in particular the "Distributors" section of LCRI 1.4D4 and its reference to a distributor that "... appears on a stamp or label anywhere in the item". If I understand the situation correctly, here is roughly the 260 that I would formulate:
260       Universal City, Calif. : $b MCA Universal Home Video, $c 1991 ; $a Willowdale, Ont. : $b exclusively manufactured and distributed by Universal Studios Home Video Canada, $c 2002.
Extrapolating from LCRIs 1.4A2 and 1.6A2 regarding data taken from such labels, I would suggest transcribing the information without brackets and to make a note indicating that the data was found on a label.


The Concept of the Order of Parts

Question: There are several numbered multiple disc sets of DVDs that contain multiple episodes of television programs (examples: "Seinfeld Season 3"; "The Irish R.M. Series 2"). With multiple episodes, it is inevitable that the credits information--such as director, producer, etc.--would vary between episodes. If such DVDs were to be cataloged as multipart sets on single records, should AACR2 1.0A3b be followed? (This is the rule that reads: "In more than one physical part. Use the chief source of information of the first or earliest part as the chief source of information for the bibliographic resource as a whole".) It seems the rule could be followed as long as the concept of order of parts is appropriate to this situation. If so, would it be correct to transcribe the statement of responsibility from the first episode on the first disc and put the credits for the other episodes in the note fields? There is no unifying statement of responsibility for any of the discs, and the credits tend not to be the same for all episodes.

Answer: Let us take this in steps. A multiple-disc set of television programs (for instance, one season’s worth of episodes) is being cataloged. Relying on my general familiarity with such publications, I am guessing that the several discs were published together and at the same time in some sort of unifying container. This container serves as the chief source of information. If I read and understand Rule 1.0A3b correctly (especially when it is read with 1.0A2b in mind): when something in more than one physical part is published together and at the same time, "... the concept of the order of parts is not appropriate". Again, as I understand this (and recalling some heated discussions in which I took part concerning this issue in RDA/AACR3), "order of parts" in this context has to do with order of publication (and this is where referring back to 1.0A2b is crucial) when different parts of the resource are published and/or distributed at different times (as in a finite multipart monograph that comes out volume by volume, and not necessarily in order). Since "... the concept of the order of parts is not appropriate" in such a case, then Guideline iii applies: "If the container is a unifying element for the bibliographic resource, prefer the container as the chief source of information". If there happens to be no "unifying statement of responsibility", then none needs to be created. It would be perfectly appropriate, however, to list any credits in a contents note with the corresponding episode title or in a credits (508) note, whichever makes more sense and is sufficient for your audience and purposes. Of course, such detailed credits could also be omitted altogether, if they are too complicated or not needed for a library’s particular collection and its users.


"Mixed" Configurations of Playback Channels

Question: In the 007 fixed field for videorecordings--specifically the Configuration of playback channels (position 08)--does the "mixed" code mean a mixture of channels within the video? An example would be: a documentary on FDR, created in stereo, with speeches by FDR in mono. There are a lot of records for DVDs in the utilities that give "mixed" as the playback channel code, even though it is clear these are alternate sound tracks, not a mixture within one track. The "mixed" code on a VHS is even more confusing, as there is no way to choose an alternate track. In checking the Dolby Website <http://www.dolby.com>, it states that, for both Dolby Surround (which is now outdated) and Dolby Digital: "Dolby Digital technology can transmit mono, stereo (two-channel), or up to 5.1-channel surround sound [4 channels for DS]". The first question is: lacking a way to physically determine the number of tracks, if the VHS says Dolby Surround, but also says stereo, can it be assumed that the Dolby Surround is delivering two channels, not four? The second question is: if there are alternate sound tracks on a DVD, should the code for the highest number of tracks be used in that 007 position, with an added explanation about alternate sound tracks in a 538 or other 500 note? Or is "mixed" correct for these situations?

Answer: The wording of the definition for "mixed" in the Videorecording 007/08 is certainly open to interpretation. It states: "Code ‘k’ indicates that more than one configuration of playback channels for the sound portion is available on a single videorecording. An example would be a tape with both monaural and stereophonic sound tracks". Still, it is perfectly reasonable to read the definition as including alternate sound tracks. And if--a big if--MARC 21 is correct in its separate definitions for codes "q" (quadraphonic, multichannel, or surround) and "s" (stereophonic), catalogers would have to regard separate mentions of "stereo" and "surround" as indicating the availability of more than one configuration of playback channels. As the example noted in the definition of code "k" suggests, a choice of different playback configurations must not be completely unknown in the videotape medium.


007s for Streaming Media

Question: Where in the guidelines does it stipulate that the first 007 field has to be for the original format, rather than the format-in-hand? Records for "Films for the Humanities" streaming videos have 007 v $b f ... and records for the Naxos Music Library have a Sound Recording 007 for the online format itself (007 s $b z. ...), in addition to field 007 for the Electronic Resource aspect. What are your thoughts on treating streaming audio/video as a new format, with distinct 007 coding?

Answer: As far as I am aware, there are no explicit guidelines anywhere on the order of multiple 007 fields (or multiple 006 fields, for that matter). I have checked OCLC’s BF&S, MARC 21, and several PCC documents, including the BIBCO Participants’ Manual, and found nothing.

In cataloging streaming media, it is not really a case of one 007 for the "original format" and another 007 for the "format-in-hand". As I see it, the 007 fields are actually used for different (but intertwined) aspects of the streaming medium. As such, a mandated hierarchy would be sort of arbitrary. Between the Computer File 007 and the Videorecording 007 there is overlap (subfield $d Color and to some extent subfield $f Sound), but there are also elements that can be coded in one but not the other (in the CF 007 subfield $b, the remoteness aspect can be coded, and in the subfields $g through $l, various technical and preservation aspects may be recorded; in the Video 007, the configuration of sound playback channels can be coded in subfield $i). One can say similar things about overlap and uniqueness when comparing the CF 007 and the Sound Recording 007 for streaming audio. Again, remember that, when coding the Videorecording 007 for streaming video or the Sound Recording 007 for streaming audio, the coding is for the streaming medium, not for any "original" video or audio medium, at least as far as the current coding standards allow.

There has been no concerted attempt to keep 007 coding current with technological change. As a result, many specific codes for streaming media simply do not exist, and I am not aware of any proposals that would create such codes. After RDA is published in 2008, there are bound to be repercussions throughout the MARC format. Perhaps at that time we will see some new and revised coding possibilities, but I strongly doubt that catalogers will see much before that time.

Finally, with all that being said, here are my suggestions for 007 coding for streaming media, without any implications for the order of the 007 fields. Keep in mind that many of the elements will be "unknown", "other" or "not applicable", rather than anything directly meaningful.
Videorecording 007 for Streaming Video
007       v $b z $d c $e z $f a $g z $h u

Sound Recording 007 for Streaming Audio
007       s $b z $d u $e ? $f n $g n $h n $i n $n ?

Computer File 007 for Streaming Media
007       c $b r $d c $e n $f a
In these examples, the assumption is that the videos have color and sound, but those may not always apply. The question marks indicate other elements that would be coded according to the specific resource. Some optional subfields have been omitted.


300 for Streaming Video

Question: Our institution will soon be cataloging a number of streaming video segments that will be mounted on the Web. They are about 10 minutes long (or less). These segments come from film rolls originally taken in Shannon County, Missouri, as part of raw footage for two documentary films. A grant was obtained to preserve them in streaming video for researchers on the heritage of the Ozarks. There will be a URL to take the user to the finding aid (however, as we understand it, not to the segment itself). The following 300 is what we have devised for this situation. Does this 300 work or should it be revised?
300     1 streaming video segment (XX min., XX sec.) : $b sd., b&w.
Cataloging note 1: Using the word "segment" seemed debatable, but without it, a library user who encountered the phrase, "1 streaming video" in the catalog record might think it was describing a VHS.

Cataloging note 2: There is no $c because there is no a physical item.

Answer: After looking at the various options in 9.5B and 9.5C, here is my suggestion:
300     1 streaming video file (XX min., XX sec.) : $b digital, [type of] file, sd., b&w.
By "[type of] file", I mean such designations as "AVI file", "MOV file", "MPEG file", "WMV file", or "RM file", which are among the more common video file types.


Closely Related Relator Codes

Question: There seem to be two relator codes with very similar meanings that are confusing when cataloging DVDs and videos. One is the relator code "aus" (author of screenplay, etc.), whose description reads, "Use for a person or corporate body responsible for a motion picture screenplay, dialog, spoken commentary, etc". The other is the relator code "sce" (scenarist), which is described as author of motion picture screenplay. What is meant by the distinction in the descriptions, "responsible for" vs "author of"? Even more confusing, "aus" is also categorized as "author of" in its label. One conjecture might be that "aus" would allow for a broader interpretation, but it is not clear why.

Answer: If you look too long and too closely at the list of relator codes, you will not go blind, as you would by looking at the sun, but you will notice lots of overlap among the terms. Check out the list--at your own risk--on the Library of Congress Website at <http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relators.html>. One chief reason for the overlap is that terms on the list have come over the years from a wide variety of cataloging communities, each with its own terms, definitions and needs. The resulting MARC list of relator codes has never been fully coordinated to minimize or eliminate overlap or redundancy. Inside the film industry, there may well be some subtle differences between: (1) "Author of screenplay, etc. [aus]: Use for a person or organization responsible for a motion picture screenplay, dialog, spoken commentary, etc.;" and (2) "Scenarist [sce]: Use for a person or organization who is the author of a motion picture screenplay". If specialized glossaries of the film industry were checked, distinctions between a screenplay and a scenario might be found, although the two quoted code definitions seem to treat them synonymously. Since there does not seem to be a good way to distinguish between the two terms, my suggestion would be to choose one for use within the institution, document it carefully, then try to ensure its consistent use. Remember that the use of these codes in subfield $4 is optional.

Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section

Last updated: April 4, 2006
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/mar06/.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu