OLAC EXECUTIVE BOARD ELECTIONS
OLAC BUSINESS MEETING, ROCHESTER
FROM THE CHAIR
Dorian Martyn
Katha Massey, University of Georgia, has agreed to serve as Chair of the Cataloging Policy Committee (CAPC) for 1991-92. Katha will take office following the June 1991 meeting in Atlanta. We appreciate her willingness to take on this new responsibility.
We would also like to thank Sharon Almquist for her dedication and effort as she steps down as CAPC Chair. Thanks to both Sharon and Katha!
FROM THE TREASURER
Catherine Leonardi
Reporting period:
October 16, 1990 through January 25, 1991
Account Balance October 26, 1990 $4,055.43
INCOME
Interest 104.02
Memberships 5,625.00
Conference monies 454.32
------------
TOTAL INCOME 6,183.34
TOTAL $10,238.77
EXPENSES
Newsletter v. 10, no. 4 1,007.48
OLAC Board dinner (January 1991) 90.60
OLAC stipends 600.00
Demco labels 43.14
Renewal notices 208.20
----------
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,949.42
Account balance January 5, 1991 $8,289.35
CD at 8.10% matures 3/91 6,000.00
TOTAL OLAC ASSETS $14,289.35
Current membership = 705
OLAC EXECUTIVE BOARD ELECTIONS
Glenn Patton
It's time again for the annual elections of officers for the OLAC Executive Board. This year, we elect two officers: Vice-Chair/Chair- Elect and Treasurer. Terms of office and responsibilities were outlined in the 'call for volunteers" in the September 1990 issue of the OLAC Newsletter. The candidates presented by the Nominating Committee for these two offices are:
Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: Sheila Smyth
Treasurer: Bobby Ferguson
Lois McCune
Background information about these candidates follows.A ballot is stapled into the center of this issue. Please vote for the candidates of your choice and return the ballot by June 1, 1991 to:
MEET THE CANDIDATES
CANDIDATE FOR VICE-CHAIR/CHAIR-ELECT
Reported by Ellen Hines, OLAC Secretary
There was an addition to the agenda of a discussion of the progress of the SAC subcommittee working on the revision to the "Guidelines for subject access to audiovisual materials."
Sheila Smyth provided a review of the October OLAC Conference in Rochester. Over 160 people attended the conference (from 29 states) and we came in $200 under budget. Sheila also mentioned some of the evaluation comments that were provided by conference attendees and discussed some suggestions for future conference topics.
Bobby thanked Sheila and her committee for their efforts which resulted in such an excellent conference.
Sheila Smyth and Karen Driessen then discussed their work on the AV physical processing manual. The contract with Greenwood Press has been signed and any royalties will go to OLAC (a "deadline" date of September, 1992 was established). The "tentative" title for the manual is "A library manager's guide to the physical processing of non-print materials."
Karen discussed the structure of the introduction, which include general criteria to be considered when making physical processing decisions (e.g., circulation policies, methods of storage, etc.). Within each chapter considerations specific to that type of media would also be covered. Each chapter will encompass packaging, labelling, barcoding, accompanying materials issues, etc.
Karen asked for additional ideas, thoughts, concerns, etc. Mary Konkel asked whether some sort of 'appendix' could be added that lists the libraries that actually use a particular set of procedures so that people could contact them if they wanted further information.
Karen and Sheila once again requested that any OLAC members who have physical processing manuals, or who handle unique audiovisual materials, contact them so that this input can be considered for addition to the manual.
Sheila Smyth gave the ALCTS:AV report (Sheila's report appears elsewhere in this issue.--Ed.) The major change since the last published report is that Joan Swanekamp (Eastman School of Music, University of Rochester, NY) is the new Chair of ALCTS:AV. She also reported that evaluations of the ALCTS:AV/OLAC cosponsored program on minimal level cataloging at ALA Chicago 1990 were positive.
Verna Urbanski updated us on her work on the manual for locally produced materials. Only two chapters remain (and may be complete by summer ALA) and the rest of the text is with the editor.
An update on format integration was given by Glenn Patton. The Library of Congress and the bibliographic services have agreed on a "selected list" of changes (mostly affecting tags, indicator values and subfields that have become obsolete) that will be implemented over the next six months. This list will be published as part of update 3 to the USMARC format. Glenn said there will not be a significant affect on the audiovisual format.
Verna Urbanski then gave us an overview of the CAPC discussion on multiple versions at the OLAC Conference. The audience in Rochester ended up taking a very conservative stance on the topic of multiple versions by starting out by treating only materials that they knew were reproductions (e.g., reproducing a 3/4 in. item in a 1/2 in. VHS format). People seemed to want to avoid the issue of addressing simultaneous release of formats (e.g., a videocassette and motion picture are released at the same time) because of the uncertainty about what actually constitutes content duplication. OLAC approved participating in the multiple version technique, but only on a very conservative basis (which is similar to what the Music Library Association has decided).
Verna then discussed CC:DA's Multiple Version Task Force meeting this afternoon. They are attempting to focus in on "reproductions", with the goal of establishing a set of guidelines that have a scope statement, definitions, and then implementing language that will tell us how to actually do the multiple version cataloging. The idea is to create "minimal" disruption to the cataloging rules. John Attig then gave us a brief review of the 2-levels of description approach (original and copy) being considered by the Task Force.
Katha Massey then talked about some concerns she, and some of her fellow subcommittee members, have with the revised "Guidelines for subject access to audiovisual materials". A "final" version is going to be submitted to SAC at Midwinter that they thought to be only a "draft" of the guidelines. Katha was under the impression that before a final version was submitted, a draft would be distributed for comments by interested parties. However, no such distribution occurred and she is very concerned about the language, grammar and completeness of the "final" version that is going to SAC. After discussion, CAPC voted unanimously to ask for further review of this "draft" document.
In Sharon Almquist's absence, Nancy Olson led a brief discussion of some of the issues involved in the cataloging of interactive media. There are currently five levels of interactive media (varying from Level 0 = video disks to Level IV = video disk + computer = to create, modify and manipulate information). The cataloging problems arise when one tries to decide if the material is just a video disk or is it "mixed media" (when it is a video disk hooked to a computer). Conflicts also arise over what to call this type of media--"hypermedia", "multi-media", etc.? Further discussion of this topic was tabled until Sharon Almquist is present (see end of CAPC minutes for some post-meeting notes from Sharon.)
CAPC then discussed standardizing the notes related to CLV and CAV format, letterbox, and pan-and-scan. Nancy Olson said that she felt that the edition statement would be more appropriate for the "letterbox" information instead of the note field. These issues will be discussed further at a later time.
Sheila Intner wondered if CAPC is not expecting too much of a "backlogged" Library of Congress to continue this data sheet program for items not in its collection. The idea of OLAC taking up the data sheet program, in terms of finding another body to handle it, was discussed. After some discussion, it was decided to table this issue until the Saturday OLAC business meeting.
Katha Massey asked about a proposed joint CAPC/ALCTS:AV meeting. Joan Swanekamp (Chair, ALCTS:AV) said that she will try to arrange a date for this meeting at the ALA Conference in Atlanta.
"Notes from an Absent Chair"--Sharon Almquist
ONLINE AUDIOVISUAL CATALOGERS (OLAC)
Reported by Ellen Hines, OLAC Secretary
BUSINESS MEETING
ALA MIDWINTER MEETING, JANUARY 12,1991
Secretary's report -- Ellen Hines
The ballot will appear in the March 1991 issue of the OLAC Newsletter and will be due June 1st.
Catherine Gerhart discussed CC:DA's work on the Australian proposal to put VHS/Beta back in the 300 tag. CC:DA tabled the proposal to elicit comments from ALCTS:AV and OLAC. Once again, a key issue is whether VHS and Beta are physical characteristics or technical specifications. CC:DA has another meeting yet and Catherine will be reporting that in a future OLAC Newsletter.
Sheila Smyth's ALCTS:AV report will be printed in the March issue of the OLAC Newsletter.
Lowell Ashley reminded us that MOUG's next meeting is in Indianapolis in February, just before the annual Music Library Association conference. The NACO Music Project has begun a pilot project this year to ascertain the usefulness of adding name/title authority records for headings that are represented on LC bibliographic records but do not have formal name authority records. (LC practice is to not make a formal name/title authority record unless a cross-reference, or some other note, is associated with the heading.) The composer chosen for this experiment was Prokofiev and involved about one hundred headings.
The University of Maryland, College Park, has been established as the repository for the MOUG archives. The 3rd edition of the Best of MOUG is still available and the MOUG membership directory was also published this fall.
Glenn Patton mentioned that the need USMARC update (3) will include the beginnings of format integration (see CAPC minutes for details). OCLC's EPIC Service now offers a "gateway" to the EASYNET network via a common command language-based interface. At the OCLC booth, the PRISM service and the newest OCLC workstation, the 386SX, are being demonstrated.
Next, Glenn discussed the implementation of their new telecommunications network. OCLC is working closely with each regional network to smoothly migrate them to this new environment. Some "glitches" have occurred in the conversion to the new Sprint network, but all are being promptly addressed. Glenn made two requests. 1) Users should upgrade to Passport software as soon as it arrives in their library; and, 2) Have more than one person in your library know about OCLC, modems, phone fines, etc.
OCLC is also in the process of reimplementing ILL and a revamping of searching in the authority file (to a phrase-oriented style) is underway. Glenn also announced that OCLC is negotiating to purchase UTLAS.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 and was followed by the traditional question and answer session.
Reported by Ellen Hines, OLAC Secretary
ONLINE AUDIOVISUAL CATALOGERS (OLAC)
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
ALA MIDWINTER MEETING, JANUARY 13,1991
Introductions and announcements -- Bo-Gay Tong
Verna also discussed some of the binding options (and their respective costs) we might want to consider for the upcoming cumulative index (vol. 1-10). Perma-bind was considered, but the Board decided to go with a less costly "embossed' cover that will stiff provide more permanence for this cumulative volume. Verna will also investigate the possibility of using acid-free paper for the index.
The ballot will appear in the March 1991 issue of the OLAC Newsletter and will be due June 1st.
Then Sheila discussed the pros and cons of the Conference as expressed via the post-conference evaluations. She will be updating the Conference guidelines for inclusion in the Officer's Handbook and sending them to the Secretary. Bobby Ferguson suggested that there be some clarification of the process of selecting people to do write-ups for each workshop/speech. Cecilia proposed that she put a request for volunteers to write conference reports in the newsletter issue that first announces an OLAC Conference. Sheila will add this recommendation to her revised Conference guidelines.
The first three chapters should be completed by this summer and Cecilia Piccolo and Sharon Almquist volunteered to provide Sheila with editorial input on these chapters. An alternative title for the manual was suggested: "Managing library processing decisions for nonprint materials" and will be discussed later.
Cecilia put forward a proposal from Sheila Intner that our Chair and Vice-Chair be renamed 'President" and "Vice-President." This, too, was tabled until the OLAC meetings in Atlanta.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM.
Several questions concerning the standardization of cataloging these "multimedia' materials invite your response.
Please send cataloging examples, comments, or media packaging examples to Sharon Almquist, CAPC Chair, Media Library, 111 Chilton Hall, P.O. Box 12898, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, before June 1, 1991. This topic will be on the agenda for the CAPC meeting at ALA.
Reported by Sheila Smyth, OLAC Liaison to ALCTS AV
The ALCTS AV Producer/Distributor-Library Relations Subcommittee is working on a CD-ROM questionnaire. The group is seeking input on licensing problems that libraries are experiencing.
The ALCTS AV Standards Subcommittee is drafting guidelines for packaging AV materials.
The published proceedings of the program on minimal level cataloging held at the 1990 ALA Annual Conference will be submitted to the ALCTS Publications Committee.
A tour of CNN will be available in Atlanta thanks to Jo Davidson of the University of Georgia.
Discussion centered on the concluding of LC's Audiovisual Data Sheet Program. It was proposed that the ALCTS AV chair send a letter to Henriette D. Avram of the Library of Congress expressing the AV Committee's regrets for the ending of this program and recommending that alternatives be explored, such as NACO and CIP, to insure a high quality of bibliographic records.
The group decided that members and liaisons should review SAC's Guidelines for Subject Analysis of Audiovisual Materials and return their comments to the AV Committee. Liaisons were charged to query their committees for input.
ALCTS AV tentatively scheduled a two-hour slot for Saturday from 2-4 at the ALA Annual Conference in 1992 for a program on computer files.
MARBI REPORT
MIDWINTER MEETING, JANUARY 1991
Reported by Nancy B. Olson, OLAC Liaison to MARBI
No proposals or discussion papers directly involved cataloging audiovisual materials as most dealt with the Holdings or Authority Formats. Several discussion papers will result in proposals at the next MARBI meeting.
The changes all involved fields, subfields, indicators, and fixed field elements which are being made obsolete. The following list summarizes these changes and indicates which formats are affected (indicated by the abbreviations used in USMARC). If a field is listed without a specific subfield or indicator, the entire field is being made obsolete.
DATA
ELEMENT NAME FORMAT
008/30 Title page availability SE
008/31 Index availability SE
008/32 Main entry in body of entry BK MU VM
008/32 Cumulative index availability SE
100-130 Main entry fields
Ind. 2 - Main entry/subject relationship BK MU SE
222 Key title
Ind. 1 - Variant title/added entry required CF SE
260 Publication, Distribution, Etc. (Imprint)
Ind. 1 - Presence of publisher in imprint BK MP MU SE
Ind. 2 - Added entry/publisher relationship SE
302 Page count BK
308 Physical Description for Films (Archival) VM
500 General Note
$1 - Library of Congress call number SE
$x - ISSN SE
$z - Source of note information AM SE
512 Earlier/Later Volumes Separately Cataloged Note SE
515 Numbering Peculiarities Note
$z - Source of note information SE
520 Summary, Abstract, Annotation, Scope, Etc. Note
$z - Source of note information AM BK CF SE
525 Supplement Note
$z - Source of note information SE
527 Censorship Note (Archival) VM
530 Additional Physical Form Available Note
$z - Source of note information AM CF SE VM
546 Language Note
$z - Source of note information SE
547 Former Title Complexity Note
$z - Source of note information SE
550 Issuing Body Note
Ind. 1 - Existence of additional information SE
$z - Source of note informatio SE
570 Editor Note SE
580 Linking Entry Complexity Note
$z - Source of note information ALL FORMATS
76X-78X Linking Entry Fields
$q - Parallel title BK SE
Return to Table of Contents
Reported by Ellen Hines, OLAC Secretary
Reports from the Board and Committees
Glenn Patton gave a brief update of the imminent arrival of OCLC's Passport software and the PRISM system. The field test version of PRISM went into production on June 24, 1990, followed by the training of the field test libraries. Replacement of the OCLC terminal software (with Passport software) has begun in the upper mid-West. He encouraged us to install Passport (which works on both the current online system and on the new Prism system) as soon as it is delivered to an institution.
Next, Glenn outlined the stages of the implementation of their new telecommunications network. A Sprint representative (from NCR) will arrive after the Passport software has been delivered and will install a new modem and remove our old 'blue' modems. After these Sprint modems are installed, only users with Passport software running will be able to access OCLC. Only a few hours of downtime are anticipated during this changeover.
Field testing (in 19 libraries and regional networks) of Prism has just ended. From now on, OCLC's regional networks win assume the burden of training users on Prism.
ANSWER: Glenn Patton (OCLC) points out in the first part of that answer in v.9, no.2, that a cataloger should: "Use the title as projected. If it is the foreign title, that is what you should use. If it is in both languages, do a parallel title." AFTER a cataloger has determined the title by looking at the projected title, THEN if they have the title in another language available from another source such as a container or accompanying material and they wish to provide access by that title, they can, "give the title on the container ... in a note, and then trace the title."
As you know, AACR2R calls for transcription of information as found in the item. If the Spanish title is present only as a voice over simultaneous to the display of the title in English, the title used in the 245 should be the title as displayed, i.e., the English title. For an original English language work, the uniform title (130) would be the English title plus the language version (Spanish). For example,
130 Driving Miss Daisy. $1 Spanish.
245 Driving Miss Daisy ......
If the container has the title in Spanish, make a
note about that title and provide an added entry for the
Spanish language title. If the title is there only as voice over,
formulate a note such as "Title of Spanish version: ......" or
"Spanish version has title..."
Provide added entry access for the Spanish title. A change
in the language of the sound track qualifies as one of the conditions
requiring a separate record on OCLC.--- VUQUESTION: We recently purchased from Warner New Media a compact disc which includes both a digital audio recording of a Beethoven string quartet and a Hypercard computer program with video and audio commentary about the music. How should such an item be described and in what format?
ANSWER: Your question is the tip of the iceberg of the increasingly complex question of how best to describe interactive media packages. We had an interesting discussion about this during the Q&A session of the OLAC business meeting at Midwinter. I suggest that your item be cataloged as a computer file, following chapter 9 of AACR2R. The package blurb indicates that this is a: "New CD-ROM, complete quartet, enhanced by thousands of pictures, commentaries, additional music analysis, historical information, musical glossary and index, all interactively accessible with a Macintosh computer." The contents lists as its first item "CD-ROM data (1:30 minutes)" which is followed by eight cuts containing Beethoven's String quartet no. 14, then 32 minutes of "extra audio examples." This is clearly more than a sound recording. To get the most out of this product a user needs peripheral equipment. Currently, chapter 9 is best equipped to help in description of the item. Consult chapter 6 for constructing certain description pertaining to the musical content of the item. Caveat: This is only my best guess. Time may point another direction for treatment of this material.
Currently, interactive media is considered to exist in five distinct levels (0-4). Catalog levels 0-2 (materials not requiring the use of a computer) as video material. Catalog levels 3-4 (materials requiring the use of a computer, so called "computer platform based") as a computer file with accompanying materials. There is debate about where level 2 should be cataloged since it does require use of a more sophisticated videodisc player with a built in microcomputer. To make life even more fun, there is activity in the area of retrospectively upgrading the interactivity of a level 0 or level 1 videodisc by issuing computer programs to increase their accessibility.
OLAC and many others are working on how best to handle this material. Since this is the leading edge of a new technology, it is not possible to provide really concrete answers. No matter what advice I give, it may be proven wrong. As always, the best advice is to examine the material carefully, establish treatment in a consistent manner and stay tuned for further developments!! It is a very exciting time to be working with nonprint media.
I recommend that we all educate ourselves about these developing materials so we can make intelligent decisions. Advanced Technology in Education: an Introduction to Videodiscs, Robotics, Optical Memory, Peripherals, New Software Tools, and High-Tech Staff Development by Royal Van Horn (Brooks/Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove, CA LCCN 90-36124) provides an excellent introduction in very accessible language. --- VU
QUESTION: I hesitate to bring up the "d"-word yet again -- dates! I have a lingering concern about searching for video releases of items originally produced as motion pictures. When checking OCLC's AV Media Format under Dat tp, the rule couldn't be clearer. It says:
My concern is with searching. If the date of the original appears only in a note, the searcher has to do a free text search is s/he wants the video of Olivier's 1948 Hamlet. Currently, many systems do not accommodate free text searches. My question is: Can the MARC AV format provide easily searchable information about the date of original production for videos? I think we have got to put in a fixed field or a uniquely tagged field information about the original date of production.
Also, are the guidelines for assigning date type "p" the same when using the OCLC AV format as those specified in the LC USMARC format? If so, could OCLC add the example from the USMARC format to clarify conditions when a video should be assigned date type "p"?
ANSWER: OCLC's AV Media Format has always been clear that "Date tp" code "r" does not apply in this case. You are quite right to point out that this appears to be something of a contradiction to standard practice for sound recordings where code "r" is used for a reissue in a different physical medium. I don't think, however, that it is for that reason that a distinction is being made between reissues in the same broad form of material (with "sound recording" being a form of material) and releases which cross from one form of material to another (i.e., from motion picture film which is a photographic process to video tape which is an electronic one). I will admit, however, that it's just as possible that the reason why this coding practice is different is just as likely to be historical accident.
What OCLC has not made dear is that it is appropriate to use "Date tp" code "p" for videorecording releases of motion pictures when you know both dates and when the dates differ and when the content is the same. That instruction is clear in USMARC Formats for Bibliographic Data but has previously not been incorporated into OCLC documentation. I have requested that this be done in the next round of revision pages for format documents. This will allow both dates to be available in the Fixed Field for searching and manipulation purposes. --- Glenn Patton (OCLC)
"Dates" and "Dat tp" are confusing. The Q&A column from v.4, no.2, June 1984 of the OLAC Newsletter provides this summary:
Appropriate codes for commercially produced video copies
of previously released motion pictures will be:
"s" if only one date is known;
"p" if release date of video and production date
of the original motion picture or current
video are known and there is a difference
of at least one year between those dates;
"c" if current release and current or original
copyright are known; and,
"q" if a digit is missing from the date.
To summarize: If there are two dates, and the
original was a motion picture but you are cataloging the video
copy, you would use "c" if the earlier date is the original copyright
date, "p" if the earlier date is the production date. If using "c" the
information should be in publication, distribution, etc., area (place :
distributor, 1990, c1945).If using "p" the earlier date should be in the note that gives information about the original production:
Return to Table of Contents
Top
Last modified: December 1997
URL: http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/newsletters/...
HTML version created by Brenda Battleson (
blb@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Return to OLAC Newsletter index