OLAC Cataloger’s Judgment: Questions and Answers
Compiled by Jay Weitz
Uniform Titles for Feature Films
Question: A number of catalog records for videorecordings are now including a uniform title field for most feature films. Has that become a new cataloging practice? As an example:
130 Ice age (Motion picture)
245 10 Ice age $h [videorecording]
Answer: Catalogers are seeing more 130 uniform titles on records for videorecordings probably because of the relatively recent (2005) creation of the succinct 28-page LCRI 25.5B Appendix I. Although it is intended specifically for use by PCC participants (and in certain respects by LC catalogers, who catalog moving images according to AMIM rather than AACR2 proper), other catalogers have found it a useful guide for identifying motion pictures, videorecordings, television programs, radio programs, and related resources. One may choose to follow or not follow its provisions, depending upon the characteristics of the collection the videorecording is being cataloged for, user needs, and local cataloging policy. Catalogers can also follow the LCRI in cases where there is the need to differentiate similarly titled resources (remakes, for example) or a desire to impose some logical order on otherwise chaotic titles (season collections of TV programs, for instance), and ignore it when there is no need for a uniform title.
DVD Label as Chief Source for Title
Question: The item in hand is a DVD that contains three different, previously released skiing programs transferred from VHS (Beyond the groomed, OCLC #37034189; and Freedom of the heels, OCLC #47961384; the other one, Big mountain little skier, is not separately cataloged). In addition, there has been added additional material, to make this a totally new work. On the container and on the DVD label is what could be referred to as a collective title: Freeheels in the Backcountry. Using Nancy Olson’s DVD Cataloging Primer (http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/capc/dvd/dvdprimer2.html), the instructions for chief source of information are: "DVDs should always be cataloged from the title screen(s)." But the menu on the DVD itself does not show this or any collective title; it has each of the 3 videos listed separately and are meant to be viewed as such. The question is, is it correct to go with the notion that this has no collective title? In that case, the 245 would look something like this:
245 00 Beyond the groomed $h [videorecording] : $b off site skiing for the free heel skier / $c produced by Nils Larsen ; videography, Nils Larsen, John Laptad, Carol Wallace ; narration, John Foster, Shelly Butler. Freedom of the heels / produced by Nils Larsen/Free Heels. Big mountain, little skier / a Free Heel Production ; videography and editing, Nils Larsen.
If the collective title from the container/DVD label should be used, where is the documentation for that? It appears there should a 246 field: "Title on container: Freeheels in the backcountry"if the collective title is not the main entry. Videographers, editors, narrators, etc. could be placed in the subfield $c because they are different for each program, and a 508 or 508s would seem a little complicated or confusing. Each program has its own credits, which differ slightly, in the ways shown above. On the container is a note that says "Written and directed by Nils Larsen. Produced by Nils Larsen or as noted". Should that be a single statement of responsibility? If so, how should the producers, which are slightly different in the credits of each film, be listed? What constitutes "title screens" for a DVD? Is it the menu, or is it what you see when you run the actual movie or program? Finally, in making title added entries for the individual program titles: should they all be in 740s, or, since two of them are already cataloged, should those two go in 730s and the uncataloged one in a 740, or should they all be in 730s?
Answer: Although in general, Nancy Olson's declaration about using the title screens to catalog a DVD is sound advice, it actually overstates the definition of chief source of information for motion pictures and videorecordings as found in 7.0B1. The rule reads in part: "The chief source of information for motion pictures and videorecordings is (in this order of preference): a) the item itself (e.g., the title frames); b) its container (and container label) if the container is an integral part of the piece (e.g., a cassette)." In the case of DVDs and other videodiscs, remember that "the item itself" includes the surface of the disc and therefore, the disc label. If there is a collective title on a DVD label, that is a perfectly legitimate choice as a title proper. Give the individual program titles in a contents note and, if appropriate, in title added entries, as well. Credits for producers, writers, and directors for the individual titles can be included as statements of responsibility within the contents note. Other credits (editors, narrators, videographers, etc.) should be included in field 508, delineated by title if necessary. If that makes for a 508 field that is too complicated, create separate 508 field for the additional credits associated with each title. Ordinarily, the "title screens" are the credits that appear at the start of a moving image (although especially in recent years, such credits can be scattered through more than simply the early frames, and sometimes don't appear until the end). If the titles that appear in a DVD menu screen differ significantly from the titles that appear elsewhere, they should be so identified, and should be traced if appropriate. The individual title added entries can be input as 740s with second indicators "2". Please note that there is currently an OLAC task force working on revisions to the "Guide to Cataloging DVDs Using AACR2r Chapters 7 and 9."
Subfields $y, $z, and $3 in Field 856
Question: In the 856 field, when should a piece of brief descriptive information about a related Website be placed in subfield $y (Link text), $z (Public note), or $3 (Materials specified)? For example (when the resource being cataloged is a book), the words "Table of contents" or "Publisher's description" or "Sample text" or "Author's Website" or "About the author" or "Review of the book" or "For online updates, click here", which subfield do those phrases go in?
Answer: Subfield $y (Link Text) contains the natural language text that can display as a hot link, underneath which is the URL found in subfield $u. For example, the OCLC Web site contains the following sentence: "Log on to OCLC Usage Statistics using your Connexion authorization number and password". The hot linked text "OCLC Usage Statistics" would be the natural language designation that goes in subfield $y, but when one clicks on that hot linked text, it is the URL underneath, "http://www.stats.oclc.org/cusp/nav", that is the actual link that goes in subfield $u.
Subfield $z (Public Note) contains any sort of explanatory note, in a form suitable for public display in a bibliographic record, that relates to the URL found in subfield $u. For instance, LCRI 9.7B and OCLC's "Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines" suggest such a note for subfield $z in cases where the electronic address in subfield $u is no longer accessible: "$u [Dead URI] $z This electronic address not available when searched on [Date]".
Subfield $3 (Materials Specified) contains the designation for a specific part of a usually larger Web site or a reference to a related resource that one may want to highlight. In the record for a particular Web site, it may be desirable to reference its bibliography or Webliography section, for instance. In that case, the designation of that specific section would go in subfield $3, followed by the URL for that specific section in subfield $u: "$3 Webliography $u [URL for the site's Webliography]".
It All Depends Upon What "With" Means
Question: How should a title containing a "with" credit be transcribed in the 245 field? As in: "Hand-cut mortise and tenon, with Rob Cosman." Sometimes the "with Rob Cosman" part follows after a comma in the 245 subfield $a, or sometimes after a colon in the 245 subfield $b. Other times, it will be in the subfield $c, or ignored altogether, or moved to the 511. What is the recommended placement?
Answer: This is a difficult one to generalize about, because the "with [Personal Name]" construction can be used in several different ways. The only meaningful guidance from the cataloging rules is in LCRI 7.1B1, which reads in part: "When credits for performer, author, director, producer, ‘presenter,’ etc., precede or follow the title in the chief source, in general do not consider them as part of the title proper, even though the language used integrates the credits with the title. (In the examples below, the italicized words are to be considered the title proper.)" The two relevant examples are:
Ordinary people, starring Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland
Thief, with James Caan
And I think it's safe to say that in both of these cases, the "with-like" statements would be omitted from the 245 all together, with those names properly belonging in field 511.
When the "with" statement is an integral part of the title, grammatically or otherwise in a way that would render the title generic, distorted, or meaningless without it, include the statement as part of the title proper. (These are invented examples, so take them with several grains of salt, pun fully intended for the fourth example.)
245 02 A tour of the White House with Jackie Kennedy ...
245 03 An interview with Nadine Gordimer ...
245 02 A conversation with Jackson Pollock ...
245 00 Cooking with Rachael Ray ...
When the "with"statement represents a person who has some sort of overall or primary responsibility for the resource, such as the name of the lecturer for a video recorded lecture, it makes sense to include that statement in the statement of responsibility (unless it falls into the previous category where it should remain part of the title proper.
245 00 My theory of relativity $h [videorecording] / $c with Albert Einstein ...
The example given in the question leans toward this latter case, as it seems that Rob Cosman is at least the presenter (judging from OCLC #182521029) and may well have much more intellectual responsibility for the content. Unfortunately, the LCRI says only that such statements are not to be considered part of the title proper, but does not explicitly say if they should be other title information or part of the statement of responsibility or a credits note. Taking the formal definition of "other title information" ("A title borne by an item other than the title proper or parallel or series title(s); also any phrase appearing in conjunction with the title proper, etc., indicative of the character, contents, etc., of the item or the motives for, or occasion of, its production or publication. The term includes subtitles, avant-titres, etc., but does not include variations on the title proper (e.g., spine titles, sleeve titles)") in conjunction with rule 7.1F1 ("Transcribe statements of responsibility relating to those persons or bodies credited in the chief source of information with a major role in creating a film (e.g., as producer, director, animator) as instructed in 1.1F. Give all other statements of responsibility (including those relating to performance) in notes".), It would be preferable to put those sorts of lecturer/presenter/author people in the 245 subfield $c (when the "presenter" has something like writing responsibility rather than just serving as narrator or host). However, the rules are ambiguous enough to condone the placement of these statements in other title information.
Notes on a Cardboard Container
Question: How would the container for a compact disc that is issued in a cardboard container be described? There does not appear to be any description of this type container in AACR2 revised ed. Would this 500 note be appropriate: "Program notes (3 folded sheets ([6] p.) : ill.) comprises the container."
Answer: In the era of the LP, when most containers were cardboard and often had the program notes printed on them and/or bound into the fold, catalogers simply said something such as: "Program notes on container" or "Program notes bound in container," as appropriate and with additional details when needed. There's no reason why a cardboard CD container couldn't be treated similarly. The exact configuration of the program notes isn't clear from the question (Is it a tri-fold container with notes on it? Is it a single-fold container with notes on it and on an additional page tipped-in at the fold? Is it some other arrangement?) Either of those old LP notes would be adaptable to most CD cardboard container situations. It is not necessary to specify the number of pages or sheets unless you considered that information to be important.
DVDs and Non-Collective Titles
Question: The DVDs in hand are entitled "VeggieTales Sheerluck Holmes and the Golden Ruler/The Ballad of Little Joe" and "VeggieTales Larry-Boy and the Fib from Outer Space!/Larry-Boy and the Rumor Weed." How should the titles be transcribed, when there are two titles on each DVD?
Answer: The decision about how to present the title or titles will depend upon how the titles are presented on the chief source of information (for instance, the title frames or the DVD label). If there is a collective title that could used as the title proper and (this is one suggestion, but it will depend partly on how the titles are presented) include the two individual titles in a contents note (and in 740s). If there is no collective title, the general practice would be the first title in field 245 subfield $a, followed by the GMD in subfield $h, followed by the second title in subfield $b, followed by any statement of responsibility in subfield $c. Trace the second title in field 740. That would be something like:
245 00 Sheerluck Holmes and the golden ruler $h [videorecording] ; $b The ballad of Little Joe / $c ....
AACR2 1.1G and 7.1G and related LCRIs deal with such cases of items that have no collective title.
EANs or "Unspecified" Standard Numbers?
Question: If there is a 13-digit barcode number on a DVD or CD, how can one tell if it is an EAN (and therefore has a 1st indicator "3") or an "unspecified type of standard number of code" (and therefore has a 1st indicator "8")? I understand that only Bookland EANs start with 978 or 979, so one can't use this criteria. Also, if in doubt about whether it is an EAN or not, should the indicator be 3 or 8?
Answer: If it's a thirteen-digit number that is not a thirteen-digit ISBN (that is, that does not begin with 978 or 9791 through 9799), the cataloger can probably assume that it's an EAN and code it First Indicator 3. (Those that begin with 9790 are actually new-style ISMNs, but validate as EANs and are currently coded as such.) The two instances noted in Bibliographic Formats and Standards for serials and paperback books are merely two specific examples that needed further explanation and are not meant to be an exhaustive listing of the uses of the EAN.
Other Title Information in Field 740
Question: In many WorldCat records, libraries are entering both titles and subtitles in a single 740, separated by space-colon-space, when giving access to an additional title represented by a non-collective string in a 245. In cataloging a collection of films with no collective title how should the 245 look? In one possible configuration the 245 looks like this:
Waiting for Godot $h [videorecording] ; $b Not I ; Rough for theatre I ; Ohio impromptu ; Check the gate : putting Beckett on film ....
The final film is a documentary. The 740 on the OCLC master record read like this:
740 02 Check the gate : putting Beckett on film.
Would it be better to have two 740s, such as:
740 02 Check the gate.
740 02 Putting Beckett on film.
Does it matter either way?
Answer: There appear to be no official rulings on this question in MARC 21, in AACR2, or in the LCRIs. In the section "Models illustrating title access" in "Items Without Collective Title" of LCRI 21.30J, all of the relevant examples actually omit the other title information from the 740 field and don't include that other title information in a subsequent 740 (see examples 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 18). This wouldn't be a mandate to always ignore other title information, however. There would certainly be cases where including other title information following the title proper in a single 740 could be perfectly OK (there is no provision for a subfield $b in field 740, of course). And in cases where both the title proper and the other title information could be useful, separate 740s are OK, too. This seems to be an issue where cataloger's judgment case-by-case would be advisable.
Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section
Last updated: March 21, 2008
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/mar08/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu