OLAC CATALOGER’S JUDGMENT
Jay Weitz
Dating DVDs with No Post-1997 Date
Question: In trying to catalog a DVD, a problem has arisen that is difficult to resolve. The DVD has a label date of c1992 and, at the end of the film itself there is a date of 1991. In your presentation at the OLAC Conference, you stated that DVDs cannot have a publication date earlier than 1997. Unfortunately, there are no other dates anywhere on the piece. Since a date cannot just be made up, should "199u" be used?
Answer: Actually, given these circumstances, catalogers do need to make up a date, according to AACR2 1.4F7. If there is a way to be reasonably certain that the DVD was published before 2000, then "[199-?]" would be the right choice. If there is a way to be reasonably sure that the DVD was published in 2000 or later, use "[200-?]". If there is no evidence for either of those choices, catalogers could resort to the 1.4F7 construction "[between 1997 and 2006]" or whatever range make sense in this case (with "1997" being the earliest possible date of publication for a DVD and the second date, say, the date of receipt or some other date as the latest likely date).
Durations for Multiple DVDs
Question: This question involves cataloging "The Message", which comes on two discs. Disc 1 contains the English language version, which is 178 min., and Disc 2 contains the version filmed in Arabic, which is 198 min. Both timings will be given in the physical description (Field 300) as: $a 2 videodiscs (178 min., 198 min.). However, which one should be used for "Time" in the Fixed Field?
Answer: As far as I can determine, the suggested solution of including both durations is not an AACR2 option under either 7.5B2 or 1.5B4. Depending upon how one reads the option under 1.5B4d, one possibility would be to add the two durations together for the physical description and for the "Time" Fixed Field. But to my mind, the "total duration" in this context implies something continuous rather than alternative versions of what is ostensibly the same resource. There seem to be at least three options, plus any number of variations: (1) Add the two durations, put "376 min." in the physical description, "376" in "Time"; (2) Do not include a duration in the physical description; use "376" in "Time"; (3) Choose either the Arabic or English version as the main content and include its duration alone in both the physical description and "Time". Given the rules as they currently exist, I do not see that any one of these choices is any more or less "correct" than another. In all cases, though, catalogers would give the individual durations for each language version in a contents or other note.
Illustrated Remote Electronic Resources
Question: Describing the illustrations for remote (www) electronic resources seems to be different than describing those for print material. In print material, illustrations are included as an element of the physical description. For electronic resources, the physical description field is altogether eliminated. Does this mean that any descriptions of graphics on a Web page need to be made in a note? In researching this further, it appears that UNIMARC has developed an alternative ("Electronic Resource Characteristics"), but there does not seem to be anything comparable in MARC 21.
Answer: Since its 2004 Update, AACR2 has offered the option of including a "physical" description for remote electronic resources (see Rules 9.5A1, 9.5B3, 9.5C3, etc.). The UNIMARC 230 Field, "Material Specific Area: Electronic Resource Characteristics" is merely the equivalent of MARC 21’s 256 Field "Computer File Characteristics". Again, since the 2004 Update to AACR2, however, Rule 9.3A says that this area is no longer used for electronic resources. In my Q&A column in the OLAC Newsletter 24:4 (December 2004), p. 58-59 ("'Physical' Description of Remote Electronic Resources" at <http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/dec04/qanda.html>), I had suggested examples for two possible alternatives based on what was known at that time:
- 145 p. : $b digital, PDF file, ill.
or
- 1 electronic text (145 p.) : $b PDF file, ill.
Depending upon the nature of the illustrations catalogers want to describe, though, a note might make more sense.
Question: Among the examples of coding given for the Fixed Field 008/18-21 (Illustrations), there is one unfamiliar example: what is a "phonowire"?
Answer: "Phonowire", "sound wire" or wire recording was a sound recording technology consisting of a magnetized wire, popular in the 1940s and 1950s. It was a sort of predecessor to the more familiar tape recording medium. Although I cannot vouch for the cataloging, there are a few examples in OCLC at #45122761, #19062638, and #19336676.
DVD-ROM as Accompanying Material
Question: A DVD-ROM accompanying a book has proven to be particularly difficult to pin down for cataloging. The DVD-ROM will not play on a DVD player, but will play on a computer. When it is put into a computer, the information that appears is like a database (zip files, etc.). Should a "Computer File" 007 Field be used? How about system requirements? It is difficult to find anything that says what it should be. Should the 300 Field be "+ $e 1 DVD-ROM" (as the disc is) or should it be "+ $e1 computer file"? A 500 note is being included to clarify that it is "Mixed media".
Answer: For a DVD-ROM that is accompanying material to a book, catalogers may use 300 subfield $e and describe it as "1 DVD-ROM", as per one of the options in 9.5B1. It is also possible to add additional details of the physical description, if appropriate, according to 1.5E1d. A "Computer File" 007 Field would be needed, and a "Computer File" 006 Field is optional for the accompanying material. If there are no system requirements anywhere, then none may be included. However, there might at least be a note that the disc works on a computer rather than on a DVD player. Any appropriate details of what is on the DVD-ROM could be included in a note, if that is important.
Question: An "LC Overseas Data Entry" record (with "lcode" in the 042) for a video CD was recently encountered in OCLC. Although "Desc" in the Fixed Field was coded "a" for AACR2, it had a subfield $e in the 040 Field coded as "amim" for the Archival Moving Image Materials (AMIM) rules. The record follows the Archival Moving Image Materials rules rather than AACR2. The record was also encoded Elvl "5" for partial, preliminary. Records like this do not appear very often, so it is not clear what the standard practice should be. Would inputting a new record be appropriate in this situation? OCLC’s documentation does not appear to address the issues about whether or not different cataloging rules justify new records. Also, how can a record follow AMIM and still be coded in "Desc" as AACR2? Please clarify this situation.
Answer: Changes in cataloging rules do not usually justify a new record, as BFAS 4.1 states. I have always taken that guidance to include the use of different cataloging rules. This is, for instance, why OCLC encourages the re-cataloging of pre-AACR2 records rather than the input of a new AACR2 record, when possible. It is also important to note that AMIM is actually an AACR2-based document. Here is an excerpt from its introduction:
"This manual has been developed and written within the framework of the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) and Chapter 7 of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The general introduction to AACR2 states that the rules ‘are not specifically intended for specialist and archival libraries, but such libraries are recommended to use the rules as the basis of their cataloguing and to augment their provisions as necessary’.
"These rules diverge from AACR2 in four major ways: filmographic data for the original manifestation of the work is used as the basis for cataloging all subsequent manifestations of that work; multiple lines of physical description are used in one record to describe separate sets of elements for the same work or its manifestations; rereleases and reissues are combined on the same bibliographic record with the original manifestation of that work; and instead of a chief source of information, this manual prescribes a preferred source of information.
"Guidance in choosing name, subject, genre, and title access points is provided in Appendix A. AACR2 provides rules for the formulation of name headings in Chapters 22 through 24. The Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings and the Library of Congress Subject Headings provide guidance for the choice and formulation of subject headings. For guidance on applying genre and form terms, a standard list, such as The Moving Image Genre- Form Guide or Moving Image Materials: Genre Terms, may be used."
So, there is no contradiction between the code "a" in Desc and the presence of "amim" in Field 040 subfield $e. OCLC would encourage catalogers to edit the record locally for their institution’s use.
Coding for Color Recording System
Question: This is a question about PAL format and its coding in the 007 Field. For a long time, our institution has collected PAL videocassettes, mostly from African countries. It was our practice to code the subfield $e in the 007 (Videorecording format) as "z" for other, even though the PAL tapes are 1/2" in width and look like a VHS tape. Now DVDs that are PAL are also appearing. There does not appear to be any guidance in MARC addressing how PAL (or SECAM) videotapes (and now DVDs) should be coded. There are instructions to code VCDs as DVDs in subfield $e. Should they be coded as "unknown" or would the PAL 1/2 inch tapes be coded like VHS videos and PAL 4 ¾ inch discs like DVDs?
Answer: For better or worse, there is no provision for coding the color recording system (NTSC, PAL, SECAM) in the Videorecording 007 Field. A VHS videocassette should be coded as VHS (007/04 "b") regardless of its color recording system. All DVDs and all Video CDs should be coded as DVDs (007/04 "v") regardless of the color recording system. Designations of the color recording system will be put, in uncoded form, in the 538 Field.
Dates for Locally Reproduced Videos
Question: For a local collection of unpublished videos, our catalogers have been recording the year the DVD+Rs were made (2005) in the 260 Field, then including the original date of recording in a 518 field. According to the collection’s curator, these are "access copies" of archival VHS tapes that will never leave the vault. So, our question is what dates should be used in the fixed fields? Our catalogers have conducted some research and are still of divided opinion. Although this is not something to agonize over, there are at least 400 of these, so we would like to get it right.
Answer: There are some details about how to catalog locally produced and locally reproduced videos in OCLC’s Bibliographic Formats and Standards 3.7 "Locally Made Videorecordings" <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/specialcataloging/default.shtm#CHDICIBG>. Generally, catalogers would use the date of the copy in Field 260, subfield $c and Date 1. The original date of the recording would be noted in Field 518 and in Date 2. In the DtSt Fixed Field element, code "p" would be used if the format of the original recordings had been film rather than video. But in this case, the transfer is from one video medium (VHS) to another video medium (DVD), so code "r" is used.
Where Has the 006 Field Entry Gone?
Question: Where is the command to make a new 006 Field in Connexion Client 1.70?
Answer: With a record displayed, go to the "Edit" menu at the top. Depending upon a computer’s settings and monitor size, the "Edit" menu may be too long for all of its options to display. If that is the case, click on the arrow at the bottom to scroll down further until the "Guided Entry" element comes into view. Clicking on this opens it up to include "Insert 006", which in turn opens to reveal all eight of the possible 006 choices. (By the way, in Connexion Client 2.0, coming in mid-2007, the whole "Edit" menu will be able to be displayed by breaking it into columns--but that is for the future.) If editing an existing 006, simply right click on the field and choose the "Edit with Guided Entry" element. Alternatively, any or all of the "EditGuidedEntryInsert006" buttons may be added to the toolbar using the Toolbar Editor or as a defined User Tool.
Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section
Last updated: June 16, 2007
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/mar07/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu