Return to Table of Contents

---

ONLINE AUDIOVISUAL CATALOGERS (OLAC)
CATALOGING POLICY COMMITTEE (CAPC)
ALA MIDWINTER CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
February 14, 1997
Minutes

Members present: Diane Boehr (Chair), Ann Caldwell, Marcia Evans, Catherine Gerhart, Marlyn Hackett, Mary Beth Fecko, Mike Essman.

There were 24 guests.

1. Members and guests introduced themselves.

2. The minutes of the meeting of Oct. 4, 1996 (OLAC Conference in Denton) were approved as published in the Dec. 1996 OLAC Newsletter.

3. Old Business
   1. OLAC NACO AV Funnel Project Update (Ann Caldwell)

      Please see separately submitted report in this issue.

      One area of concern for the project is that we still don't have a backup person for Ann as coordinator. This needs to be someone who has had NACO training. If anyone is interested, please contact either Ann or Diane. Ann would also like to have another person with NACO training to just consult with now and then about specific headings.

   2. Audience Characteristics Subcommittee Report (Mary Beth Fecko)

      The Subcommittee plans to finalize their report so that it will be completed for the for the 1997 ALA Annual Conference. In the report, they plan to make specific suggestions to CAPC for actions to be taken, and can later possibly present some in this information in a position paper to MARBI. In finalizing the report they will contact other relevant groups, such as Cataloging of Children's Materials and reference groups who can help them locate lists of appropriate terms and provide them with input on how these terms are used by patrons.

   3. MLA Discussion Paper on the Use of the 028/037 Fields (Karen Little)

      The Subcommittee on MARC Formats of the Music Library Association (MLA) has written a discussion paper that explores the current uses of fields 028 (Publisher Number) and 037 (Source of Acquisition) in the bibliographic format and evaluates the need to modify the field definitions to match those uses. Karen Little of MLA initially brought this topic before CAPC a year ago, at which time OLAC indicated that they were interested in supporting further work on the issue, and now would like some feedback on the options outlined in the paper. Briefly explained, the problem has arisen because some music publishers are assigning publisher numbers to books that are analogous to the numbers they assign to music, and catalogers would like to be able to include these numbers in the 028, but that field is not valid for books. Also, in the case of videorecordings, it is often not clear whether a number on the item is a publisher's number (028) or a stock number (037). Attempts to clarify the difference between a publisher's number and a stock number have not been successful. Generally, catalogers want to use the 028 for any numbers that they think are bibliographically significant.

      The discussion paper puts forth three options: a. Leave things the way they are; b. Keep both fields, but make the 028 valid in all formats; and c. Combine the 028 and 037 into a single field. A concern with option b is that retaining both fields without a good definition between the two would result in catalogers agonizing over where to put the number. A concern with option c is that lumping all numbers together with no regard for their significance might create a cluttered, unusable index. After some discussion, CAPC members came out generally in favor of option b. An informal show of hands among all of those present indicated a close split between options b and c, with a slight edge for option b. One person was in favor of option a. CAPC is willing to co-sponsor a discussion paper with MLA on this topic to be submitted to MARBI.

   4. Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia--an Update on the Practice of LC and NLM (D. Boehr)

      D. Boehr discovered recently that the Library of Congress (LC) had made an internal decision not to follow the Guidelines for cataloging interactive multimedia. D. Boehr had distributed copies of a letter sent to Laurel Jizba, Chair of the CC:DA subcommittee looking at revising the Guidelines, from the LC's Cataloging Policy and Support Office. The most problematic area the LC catalogers had identified was not being able to decide whether the work being cataloged fit the Guidelines definition of interactive multimedia. This problem was magnified by the fact that the LC catalogers did not have the option of mounting the files and trying them out to determine the "degree of user control." They had found the Guidelines most helpful in providing guidance for handling multiple physical carriers, but changes in technology have resulted in most works being issued on a single physical carrier (an optical disc.) For these reasons they had recommended that all computer files be cataloged using Chapter 9 of AACR2. They did outline several areas where recommendations from the Guidelines should be incorporated into Chapter 9 or into LCRIs.

      D. Boehr explained further that when NLM (National Library of Medicine) heard about LC's decision, they thought it was a good idea and decided to follow the same policy as of January 1997. None of this was publicized or made known to the general cataloging community. LC never really cataloged much of this type of material anyway, but NLM has cataloged a lot of it and still does. There isn't very much difference in the records, except for the general material designation (gmd) [interactive multimedia] vs. [computer file].

      There was some discussion about whether NLM records cataloged as computer files in OCLC would overlay records already present that were cataloged as interactive multimedia, or whether duplicate records would result. Eric Childress, of OCLC, was not sure about this, but he brought up the additional fact that the new ISBD for computer files, which is working its way through the international bodies that have to approve it, has changed its name to ISBD for Electronic Resources. As a result, Laurel Jizba is bringing a proposal to CC:DA (tomorrow) to abandon the gmd [interactive multimedia] in favor of [electronic resource]. (See CC:DA report in a future OLAC Newsletter issue for more information on this topic.)

   5. Draft Rewrite of OLAC's Statement of Rationale for Cataloging Nonprint Collections (D. Boehr)

      D. Boehr explained that she was not completely sure what R. Harwood wanted in terms of a rewrite. R. Harwood explained that he wanted CAPC to determine whether the statement was worded broadly enough to incorporate electronic resources and, possibly, information sources that might not be physically housed in the library, but that if CAPC felt it was premature to change the statement then that was their decision.

      The statement of Rationale is dated 6/95 and was originally distributed to administrators and managers to be a philosophical and practical explanation of why it's just as important to catalog non-print materials as it is to catalog materials in traditional book form.

      D. Boehr will appoint a subcommittee to work on this and have a draft version to discuss at the next meeting.

   6. Core Categories for Visual Resources (D. Boehr)

      The Data Standards Committee of the Visual Resources Association asked OLAC for comments on their draft document Core Categories for Visual Resources, which defines needed descriptive elements in records for art objects. This was submitted to CAPC after the October meeting but the comments were needed before this meeting, so CAPC was unable to discuss it. CAPC members commented on it via Email and D. Boehr composed a letter which was sent to that association.

4. New Business
   1. MARBI Proposals and Discussion Papers (J. Attig)

      John Attig reported on selected proposals and discussion papers that MARBI would be deciding on at this conference. (His complete report with an explanation of the documents and MARBI results can be found in this issue.) CAPC supported Proposal 97-1 which makes some changes to the 856 field to facilitate the practice of using this field to describe the electronic location of related resources. CAPC did not come to any consensus on Proposal 97-3, a redefinition of code "m" in Leader/06 (Type of material.) This controversial proposal has at its heart the larger concept of whether we should be cataloging a work based on its content vs. its carrier.

   2. Using the MARC 310 Field in Non-serial Material (Meredith Horan)

      Meredith Horan from the National Library of Medicine , described a problem with cataloging entities such as databases, electronic lists and web sites, which are not considered to be serials according to current rules. The closest thing like these in the print world are loose-leaf publications. M. Horan cited the recent publications of Crystal Graham of UC San Diego and Jean Hirons of CONSER that point out the problems in describing these types of works because they don't really fit as either serials or monographs.

      In cataloging their own databases, the catalogers at NLM would like to be able to use the 310 field to record information about update frequency. They think that with format integration, it is appropriate to use this field in a record not coded as a serial. However, OCLC has not validated this field for such use. When they contacted OCLC, they were told by Robert Bremer that there is some debate as to what fields belong in a monograph record, and they would like more direction from LC.

      The broader question here is that we may need to either change the definition of a serial, or provide for a different bibliographic level for something in between a monograph and a serial. John Attig pointed out that Graham and Hirons will be presenting a paper on this at the Toronto conference next fall. (This is the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, being convened by the Joint Steering Committee of AACR.)

      Meanwhile, catalogers are making do by using a 500 note for update frequency information, and one institution is adding an 006 to the record to reflect seriality even though that may not be a strict interpretation of how that field is supposed to be used.

      CAPC will look at this issue more closely and discuss it again at the next meeting.

   3. Necessity of 538 and Source of Title Notes When Cataloging Internet Resources (Krista Hoffman)

      Krista Hoffman, Cataloging Director of NLM, expressed her concerns about having the 538 and the source of title being required for cataloging Internet resources. She thinks that this is a waste of time, and cannot justify the extra time it takes to do this in a production environment. She thinks we need to trust the cataloger more.

      Concerning the source of title note: There was a heated discussion about why this note is important. D. Boehr explained that copy catalogers need to know whether they have the same thing as what is described in a record, and titles can vary depending on where you take them from. John Attig pointed out that Chapter 9 is the only chapter that allows the cataloger to choose the chief source, and this makes it important to note where the title was taken from. The general consensus of the group was that the minuscule amount of time that it would save to leave off this note may cause the users of these records to waste a great deal of time determining if they have a match.

      Concerning the 538, the group agreed with K. Hoffman that a very generic note such as "Available through the Internet" was sufficient because system requirements for viewing Internet resources change frequently. Nancy Olson noted that the forthcoming new version of the OCLC Internet Cataloging Manual has a very general statement such as this in the 538, with more specific URL information in the 856.

   4. Proper Use of the 546 Field (Nancy Olson)

      Nancy Olson had planned to discuss this problem at the meeting, but it was solved the day before she left to come to the conference. Many people had been asking her for help with tagging of notes for videos with captions (both open and closed), described videos, intertitles, videos that are signed, etc. She appealed to Glenn Patton of OCLC about this, and after some discussion with others at OCLC and at LC, he formulated a rationale that explains that all of these enhancements are a part of Ra continuum of the language aspects of moving image materials that moves from title cards and intertitles... in silent films, to dubbing in another language, to subtitles in another language, to subtitles in the same language (which is really what traditional closed captioning is), to signing in the same or another language, to audio description, etc.S This reasoning persuaded LC to change their policy to include all these types of notes in MARC field 546 as language notes. An internal LC statement has been prepared, and we can expect this to appear in future MARC documentation.

      Nancy's paper pointed out that CAPC could still help clarify this area by drawing up a list of notes as examples that could be used by catalogers of videos, as well as proposals for subject headings and fixed field codes. There may also be uses for such notes, headings and codes when cataloging materials other than video. (See Language Code for Sign Language and "Language" of Videos this issue.)

5. Adjournment

   D. Boehr adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:00 PM.

Pat Thompson
OLAC Secretary

Return to Table of Contents

Virginia M. Berringer
Cataloger/Assistant Professor of Bibliography
University Libraries, University of Akron (Akron, Ohio)

Background information:
Ginni currently concentrates on the cataloging of video recordings for the University of Akron Libraries, where she has been employed since 1973. Her responsibilities also include original cataloging of all nonbook formats and training of catalogers and support staff in AV cataloging, OCLC and local system procedures. At one time or another in her career, she has cataloged most types of library materials, including monographs, serials, government documents, curriculum materials, and children's literature.

OLAC ACTIVITIES: Member; OLAC observer to CC:DA (1997 present); Member, CAPC Subcommittee on Audience Characteristics (1996-present); Participant, NACO-AV funnel project; Chair, OLAC Conference Scholarship Committee (1995-96), Member, Cataloging Policy Committee (1992-1996)

ALA ACTIVITIES: Member; Member, ALCTS; Member, ALCTS AV Committee (1993-1997); Member, ALCTS AV Standards Subcommittee (1995-1997); Chair, ALCTS AV Standards Subcommittee (1996-1997); Member, ALCTS CCS Cataloging of Children's Materials (1994-1998); Chair, ALCTS CCS Cataloging of Children's Materials (1997/98)

OTHER AV ACTIVITIES: Presenter on cataloging of AV materials, Preconference Institute on Children's Materials, Public Library Association Conference (1998); Taught Advanced Cataloging course at Kent State University School of Library Science (1985)

Background Information:
In his present position, Brad not only coordinates and administrates the cataloging, interlibrary loan, and acquisitions functions for a 4 campus system, but is also Head Cataloger in charge of all nonprint cataloging. Prior to this position, he was a remote cataloger on the Internet for the National Engineering Education Delivery System (NEEDS) through Iowa State University, and was in charge of cataloging for NASA/Johnson Space Center for 3 1/2 years. He also has a masters and Ph.D. in musicology, working in the area of 13th century Sarum chant. He has also worked in archival situations for NASA and the Houston Grand Opera.

OLAC ACTIVITIES: Member; OLAC representative to ALCTS AV Committee (1996-present)

ALA ACTIVITIES: Member; Member, ALCTS; Member, LITA; LITA representative to CC:DA (1995-present); Vice Chair/Chair-Elect, ALCTS Technology and the Arts Subcommittee (1996-present); Member, LITA Legislation and Regulation Committee (1997-present); Member, CJCLS Research and Publications Committee (1997-present)

OTHER AV ACTIVITIES: Books and multimedia reviewer for Telecommunications Electronic Reviews (TER), The Serials Librarian, and Electronic Resources Reviews (ERR)

Richard Baumgarten
Cataloger
Johnson County Library (Shawnee Mission, Kansas)

Background Information: In his present position, Richard catalogs in all formats with sole responsibility for compact discs, CD-ROMs, and monograph reference books. He also catalogs in other formats as needed. He has trained copy catalogers to catalog nonprint material for the systems and provided the core record in two formats for them to follow. Previously, he also selected history and geography books and has assisted in the automation department.

OLAC ACTIVITIES: Member; OLAC-MOUG Liaison (1996-present); Participant, NACO-AV funnel project

ALA ACTIVITIES: Member; Member, ALCTS; Member, Standards Subcommittee, ALCTS Resources Committee (1996-present); co-presenter at MARC Format Interest Group (July 1996)

OTHER AV ACTIVITIES: Chair of Quality Control Committee and Member of Steering Committee of CLOUD Task Force, a group dedicated to creating and maintaining a community information database on the Internet; Member, Program Committee for 1997 MOUG conference

Background Information:
Sung Ok catalogs original English social sciences materials in all formats, including videorecordings, sound recordings, and computer files. Among the materials she catalogs are locally produced AV materials which are videotaped conferences or class lectures. She completed the cataloging of an old backlog of videos for the Media Dept. at the Uris Library and recently completed a ten year backlog of "class videos" for the School of Hotel Library. Cornell University recently became a BIBCO library. Sung Ok provides both BIBCO full and core records which are added to the world catalog record pool.

OLAC ACTIVITIES: Member; Presented a poster session "Core-level Cataloging of Class Videos: Collaboration and Cataloging" at the 1996 OLAC Conference in Denton, Texas

OTHER ACTIVITIES: Besides her daily duties, Sung Ok serves on a standing committee of the Academic Assembly of the Cornell University Library and writes book reviews for the Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Return to Table of Contents

CONFERENCE REPORTS
Mary Konkel, Column editor

OLAC CONFERENCE
October 3-5, 1996
Denton, Texas

OUTSOURCING OF AV CATALOGING AT UNT LIBRARIES
Workshop
Doina Farkas, Head of Technical Services
University of North Texas

Outsourcing

Outsourcing is not for every library and should be a local decision made by each library. Some of the factors we took into consideration when contemplating outsourcing were: 1) demands for technical services staff time shifting to public services, including distance learning facilitation, electronic classroom services, and instructional design and support; 2) a higher internal vs. lower external cost comparison for cataloging and technical processing; 3) the quality of records produced in house vs. the quality of purchased records was comparable.

Initial investigation into the possibility of outsourcing AV cataloging here at UNT began last FY. At ALA Midwinter, I looked around for vendors that could provide us with a "one-stop" shopping source, i.e. provide us with the actual AV material AND with bibliographic records.

Professional Media Services Corp. (PMSC) seemed to fit our needs so we conducted a modest pilot program to assess the overall quality of their services from both the acquisitions and cataloging perspectives. We deliberately narrowed the scope of the pilot since we were in a transitional state between automated systems. We would be completing the migration from VTLS to Innovative Interfaces Inc. this year and we did not want to extensively test workflows for an outgoing system.

Professional Media Services (http://www.promedia.com/) supplies audio and video materials in many subject categories and formats. They also provide cataloging and processing services. They deal directly with the publishers, not via other distributors and claim their prices are very competitive. Their current list of publishers is around 6,500 and growing.

Full MARC records for current acquisitions can be delivered via tape, diskette, FTP, or edit sheets. They also offer cataloging services tailored to the specific needs of different types of libraries, i.e. academic, music, public. PMSC's A/V Access Plus database consists of approx. 500,000 full MARC records produced by LC and PMSC staff (approx. 165,000 records). Indexes include author, title, keyword, series, uniform title, ISB/UPC codes, subject, and catalog number. Boolean combinations of all these indexes can be performed. PMSC also offers PROCAT Cataloging Services for library-owned materials to assist in eliminating existing backlogs or for retrospective conversion. Processing services are also available.

Our pilot program at UNT ran between April and July of 1996. Prior to beginning the pilot, we filled out a profile with PMSC. We ordered 50 video titles and 30 arrived within the first 2 weeks. The remainder of the titles came in between 3 weeks and 90 days. We were very pleased with the fill rate.

The outline of technical processing workflow using PMSC outsourcing services was as follows:

• Shipment of materials arrived in the Receiving Unit of TS.

• Shipment of material matched with shipment of bibliographic records on diskette (either could arrive first, within 2 days of one another).

• Shipment received and invoice paid.

• Diskette containing bibliographic records given to Head of Cataloging Unit.

• Head of Cataloging Unit attached the file on disk to an E-mail message to the Libraries System Office to load the records into VTLS.

• Systems staff member loaded data into VTLS and it appeared in the daily VTLS buffer run with an error message (no call number, because we specified so in our PMSC profile--Media Librarian would assign call no.).

• Staff member performing authority work (LAIII) identified these records, added 099 tag stating IN PROCESS to clear the records out of the error state in VTLS.

• She then notified Head of Cataloging Unit that the record was in VTLS.

• Head of Cataloging Unit notified Media Librarian via E-mail that the records were now available in VTLS. She also listed the VTLS record number and the title for each video.

• Media Librarian reviewed record and assigned local call number.

Return to Table of Contents

With her usual flair and style, Professor Sheila Intner, Simmons College, Graduate School of Library and Information Science delivered the final keynote address and conference summary. It makes this body tired just THINKING that in order to give her remarks, Professor Intner had to attend a segment of each and every one of the sessions at this Conference from the keynotes and hands-on workshops to the poster sessions and one hour lectures.

After a plethora of well deserved "thank yous" were bestowed upon conference committee members, presenters, sponsors, hotel management, and attendees, Professor Intner directed her comments to the future of cataloging. Threats of downsizing, outsourcing, and deprofessionalization are real. It's evolution and evolution isn't just natural, it's inevitable.

Cataloging Departments are getting leaner and meaner. Paraprofessionals are handling more complex cataloging and vendors are supplying copy cataloging for the "easy stuff". What's left? The "off off Broadway" books which are raising catalogers from their 2nd class citizenry. Professional cataloging expertise is needed for the "hard stuff", including archival and rare materials, locally-produced or unpublished materials, audiovisual, and now, more than ever, electronic resources.

What about audiovisual catalogers? Professor Intner paints our future bright. We're the chefs in the cataloging arena and must step out of the kitchen and embrace our role as the designer of bibliographic products which must meet the needs of sophisticated users. We should be the menu designers and planners. We should shop for only the freshest and best ingredients. We should train the scullery and mold the teams. Then after we make our presentation, we should enjoy the reward.

Professor Intner challenges us to shoot for 5 STARS!

Return to Table of Contents

The ALCTS-AV committee had its first meeting on Sunday, Feb. 16, 1997 in the Washington Vista Ballroom A, from 8-9 a.m. A report on the Saturday afternoon CC:DA meeting, as well as a discussion of the "Are You Media Savvy?" brochure, were the main topics of discussions.

The ALCTS-AV committee had its second meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 18, 1997, in the Grand Hyatt Independence F room from 9:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. A number of liaison reports were given on OLAC, CC:DA, CFDG, MARBI, VRT, and DRC. The PDLR subcommittee passed the final draft of the "Are You Media Savvy?" brochure for sound recordings and for film and video. The Standards subcommittee is working a draft of the Packaging, Labeling, and Marketing of Interactive Multimedia standard, which has been renamed the Packaging, Labeling, and Marketing of User-Mounted Electronic Resources standard. The 1997 tour to the San Francisco Chronicle and Cartoon Art Museum was discussed. It will be given on Friday, June 27th, at 2 p.m., and will cost $2.00 per person. A Name Change Task Force was set up to look at whether a name change is in order for this committee. So far, the 1998 program will probably be: Inquiring Minds Want to Know Part II: The Acquisitions of Videorecordings and CD-ROMs.

Return to Table of Contents

Proposal No. 96-8: CAN/MARC Changes for MARC Format Alignment

A major portion of the meetings were taken up with a series of proposals designed to align the U.S. and Canadian versions of the MARC format. At the end of the meetings, we had succeeded in dealing with all pending issues; the Canadian MARC format will be retired and USMARC will become an international format used by both U.S. and Canadian libraries.

The only specific proposal that deals with audio-visual materials was the decision to make obsolete 008/23-27 (Accompanying material) in the Visual Materials Format.

Other proposals dealt with the Canadian requirement for carrying bibliographic and authority information in both English and French and with some specific Canadian archival practices.

Field 856 is being used for a variety of purposes, and this proposal sought to identify different categories of 856 field based on the relationship between the location given in the 856 and the resource described in the bibliographic record. A new second indicator was defined for this purpose, and the following values were defined:

        [blank] - No information provided [for old records]
           0    - Resource described [i.e., the item itself]
           1    - Electronic version of resource described
                    [e.g., the record describes a printed version and the
                    856 gives the electronic location of an scanned
                    electronic version]
           2    - Related electronic resource
                    [e.g., 856 gives the electronic address of a part of
                    the resource described which has its own location and
                    may not even be described in a separate bibliographic
                    record]
           8    - No display constant generated

The proposal was approved. The display constants associated with these indicators are still being discussed.

The proposal also added a new value "4" (HTTP) to the first indicator.

This proposal follows a long train of discussion papers and proposals designed to deal with things that are electronic in form, but something else (textual, cartographic, graphic, whatever) in content. All of this discussion assumes that content is more significant than form in identifying material to users. This is a conclusion that has still not been drawn by CC:DA, the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR, et al., who will address the question at the International Conference on AACR2 to be held in Toronto in October.

The proposal suggested treating electronic form much the way we treat microform format--by subordinating that aspect of the material. The proposal presented a series of alternative definitions for code "m" which significantly narrow the definition to things such as computer programs that can't be coded in other categories.

After some discussion, a majority of the group was not yet ready to make a decision. A new proposal will be forthcoming. Several suggestions were made. First, the new proposal should provide clearer definitions and usage guidelines for choosing value a for LDR/06. Second, the aspects not coded in LDR/06 (particularly the fact that the item is electronic in form) needs a definite place in the record, preferably not fields 006 and 007, which are optional.

This discussion paper presented a review of what has happened with the Dublin metadata efforts in the last year. There have been additional conferences which have refined the Dublin Core metadata elements and have discussed ways in which these core elements can be expanded with other metadata elements. A formal definition of the Dublin Core will be presented shortly for adoption as an Internet standard. The paper also includes a revised mapping of the Dublin Core elements to USMARC. This discussion paper is available online at: gopher://marvel.loc.gov:70/00/.listarch/usmarc/dp99.doc

The changes approved at this meeting will be published this spring and will be implemented no sooner than six months after publication. Watch for announcements from your bibliographic utility and/or vendor.

A version of the Concise USMARC Formats is available online from the Library of Congress. This version includes a list all the fields and subfields and indicators, plus most of the examples from the full version. The online formats are available from the USMARC home page: http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/. See "MARC Concise Format" under "MARC Documentation."

Return to Table of Contents

This past year has seen the conception, gestation, birth, and early childhood of the NACO Audio-Visual Funnel Project. Following a call for volunteers, 9 individuals from 6 institutions were chosen to participate. They are: Virginia Berringer and Mary Konkel (University of Akron, Ohio), Heidi Hutchinson (University of California, Riverside), Richard Baumgarten (Johnson County Public Library, Shawnee Mission, Kansas), Jo Davidson and Paula Moehle (University of Georgia), David Prochazka (Rush University, Chicago), and Jane Johnson and Martha Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive).

Seven of these individuals graciously sacrificed their last day at the OLAC Conference in Denton, Texas, October 5, 1996 to be trained in NACO procedures and heading construction. This was a whirlwind tour through chapters 22-26 in AACR2, as well as more in-depth coverage of NACO procedures. Fortunately, these were experienced catalogers, some coming from NACO libraries, and the lack of formal training time did not slow the project down. After the conference, there were a number of housekeeping types of things to tend to, such as NUC symbols and OCLC authorizations and permissions; once those were in place, participants began contributing headings almost immediately. I'm pleased to report that as of February 12th, nearly 500 headings have been contributed.

Unlike many of the existing funnel projects, this one is format, not subject driven. OLAC is fortunate to have a rich and varied membership from which to chose participants for NACO. The project includes a public library, several university libraries with quite different missions, a medical library, and a film archive. As a result, the headings contributed range from rock groups to silent film stars to departments within medical schools. At the end of the year, the project will be evaluated with an eye toward expansion.

Return to Table of Contents

The Cataloging and Documentation Committee met twice in December at the AMIA Annual Meeting in Atlanta. Linda Tadic relinquished the chair to Barbara Humphrys of the Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound (M/B/RS) Division of the Library of Congress (202-707-0162; humphrys@mail.loc.gov).

A major issue again this year was the revision of Archival Moving Image Materials: a Cataloging Manual. The Library of Congress has not been able to commit staff to this project in 1996 as was hoped, so it was decided that an AMIA subcommittee will take the initiative and work on a draft to submit to LC. Attending members of the previous subcommittee that conducted the 1995 survey of AMIM users agreed to form the nucleus of this revision subcommittee.

A new project, a compendium of existing cataloging practice, proposed by Linda Tadic, will both support and complement AMIM revision. The Committee welcomed Linda's proposal and discussed possible approaches and organization of information.

The Genre/Form Guide developed by staff in the Library of Congress M/B/RS Division was presented to the Cataloging and Documentation Committee. Few Committee members had had sufficient time to study the Guide closely, so no "official" reaction was recommended. Members of the Cataloging and Documentation Committee saw the Guide for the first time in Atlanta, where it was announced that M/B/RS staff were planning to implement the Guide in the week after their return from Atlanta. The Guide does not follow ANSI standards nor does it resemble in any way either LCSH or Moving Image Materials: Genre Terms. In other words, it is sui generis.

The Committee sponsored a conference session comparing cataloging practice at a variety of institutions. It played to a packed house, suggesting that a similar session would be welcomed at the 1997 meeting. Interest also was expressed in working with the Access Committee in some way, perhaps by a joint meeting in the future.

Return to Table of Contents

On January 28th, MOUG and MLA jointly sponsored a series authority workshop conducted by Phillip De Sellem of the Library of Congress and Alice LaSota of the University of Maryland. Workshop attendees registered separately as there was limited capacity. The workshop represented the first time MLA and MOUG jointly presented a program. The opening reception followed the workshop.

On January 29th, Rebecca Dean and Susan Westberg of OCLC and Deta Davis of LC reported on their uniform titles correction project in "Authority Control in Sonata Form". The project helped LC eliminate some of their backlog in sound recordings. The MOUG business meeting followed this opening session.

In keeping with their mission to deal with reference as well as cataloging issues, MOUG had two concurrent "Ask MOUG" sessions, one for public and one for technical services audiences. Grace Fitzgerald moderated the cataloging session which included a report by Sue Weiland on the PRISM Review Task Force. Ruthann McTyre moderated the reference session. Rick Noble, Vice President of Marketing and Reference Services at OCLC, spoke on the growth of OCLC's reference section. They have changed from an organization almost exclusively concerned with cataloging and inter-library loan to one whose mission focuses even stronger on the end user.

Many thanks go to Neil Hughes, MOUG's Continuing Education Coordinator and his program committee for this excellent conference. He is now planning next year's 20th anniversary conference in Boston.

Return to Table of Contents

NAMES:
On Jan. 1, 1997, OCLC began to implement a variety of name changes in its documentation and product literature. The OCLC bibliographic database is now called "WorldCat, the OCLC Online Union Catalog," on first reference and "WorldCat" on second reference. OCLC will also discontinue use of "PRISM service" and "PRISM" in conjunction with its system, products and services in Collections and Technical Services, Resource Sharing and Access Services. The word "OCLC" will replace "PRISM." Changes to system/product names in OCLC software and screen displays will be made on a gradual basis throughout 1997. These changes are intended to simplify and clarify OCLC's product names and their relationships with other OCLC products and services.

DATABASE:
As of January 1, 1997, there were about 943,000 Visual Materials records, 1,127,000 sound recordings and 84,000 computer files records. There are nearly 620 million holdings attached to bibliographic records.

We continue to add, as we can identify them, records from a variety of sources that can be used in support of selection and acquisition activities. We have also begun to process CIP records upgraded by Yankee Book Peddler staff. We've nearly completed development for input and output of records in UNIMARC. We are also in the process of shifting from tape to FTP for delivery of NLM AVLINE records, thus speeding up the loading process as we already have for several of the Library of Congress files.

DATABASE QUALITY:
Progress continues on database scans that result from Format Integration, Phases 1 and 2. We've also completed another run of the Duplicate Detection and Resolution software that, since 1991, has identified and merged about 973,000 monograph records. OCLC and the Library of Congress are cooperating on development of software to clean up uniform title. The first phase of project is concentrated on clean up of music-related uniform titles.

DOCUMENTATION:
A new manual, Searching for Bibliographic Records (which supersedes the Guide to Searching the Online Union Catalog), will begin distribution in late February along with a revised searching reference card. Electronic versions of both documents will also be available on the OCLC Web site.

ACCESS:
OCLC is beginning the process of migrating users from our proprietary dedicated-line network to a set of TCP/IP-based access methods. Later this year, we will offer dial-up TCP/IP or PPP services to be followed by dedicated access later. Moving in this direction will require hardware and software migrations for member libraries. Part of this is the recent announcement that OCLC will no longer support Passport for DOS after January 1, 1998. The November/December 1996 issue of the OCLC Newsletter contains more information about these changes (the feature article is also available at http://www.oclc.org/oclc/new/n224/feat.htm) and the regional networks are beginning to distribute planning information that will help you and your institutions make appropriate decisions about your access options. Also watch the OCLC Web site (http://www.oclc.org) for more information.

CATALOGING:
Development continues on the Cataloging Micro Enhancer for Windows. Plans call for the software to be available this fall. It will join CatCD for Windows and the ILL Micro Enhancer for Windows released during the past year. Current users should be aware that this software will require either Windows 95 or NT. Support for the DOS product will continue so that users can make a smoother transition.

INTERNET RESOURCES:
The InterCat database continues to grow. In early February, it surpassed 10,000 records with 429 libraries having created at least one record. The OCLC Office of Research is testing an alternative interface that combines browsing and searching and uses subheadings information to create hierarchical views of the database. Take a look at (http://purl.org/Second/). A revised version of the Internet Cataloging Guidelines should be available later this spring.

USER SUPPORT:
OCLC's regional networks continue to provide the front line of support and training for libraries using OCLC products and services. To provide additional support options, particularly for questions outside of regular business hours, OCLC's User and Network Support staff have implemented electronic inquiry and support forms. These are available via the OCLC Web site at (http://www.oclc.org/oclc/menu/suite/support.htm).

Return to Table of Contents

RLG wishes to thank Ellie Riley of the Getty Center for delivering the RLIN report at the OLAC Conference in Denton, Texas.

1. In early January, RLG installed Eureka on the Web, the World Wide Web version of RLIN's patron access interface. Users with subscriptions to the RLIN bibliographic files or CitaDel citation files or those interested in Web access can contact the RLIN Information Center. Eureka on the Web is available for demonstration. Go to the RLG Home Page (http://www.rlg.org/welcome.html) and under the WHAT'S NEW heading, click on "Eureka on the Web". (Or go directly to the Eureka on the Web page: http://www.rlg.org/eurekaweb.html). On this page, click on "Demonstration Access..."

2. A number of enhancements have been announced to DIOGENES, the automated searching and record retrieval service operated in conjunction with Retro Link Associates. Among these enhancements are the use of 024 or 028 fields in initial searches to improve the usefulness of DIOGENES for music materials. Several additional options to specify acceptable matching criteria have also been added, as well as the ability to separate results into groups of exact matches and matches that should be examined before deciding to use a record.

3. Ariel for Windows, version 2.0 was introduced in February. Among other changes, this version provides the capability to send and receive scanned documents via e-mail with MIME-compliant systems.

4. RLG has announced a contract with Blackwell for the loading of enhanced CIP records in the RLIN bibliographic files, as well as the addition of a file of records with complete table of contents information recorded in 505 fields.

5. RLG announced a new alliance with CARL which will make over 300 Dialog citation and full-text databases, RLIN and CitaDel, available through a single Web-Z39.50 gateway. This service will offer a single-decision, single pricing package that can considerably simplify obtaining a large body of information resources.

Return to Table of Contents

UPDATE FROM WLN
Submitted by Anne Lobe and Christine Zuger, WLN

LINC VERSION 1.5:
Library Internet Network Connection (LINC) is WLN's Windows TCP/IP terminal emulation software. It allows anyone with Internet access to take advantage of all the features of the WLN online system, including the ability to download MARC records and display and input diacritics and special characters. WLN released a free update to its LINC software package earlier this year. Version 1.5 has a number of enhancements, such as improvements to macros, an automatic insert line for input and edit, mass downloading and printing of ILL records with one command, and a streamlined sign on.

PROFESSIONAL MEDIA SERVICE CORPORATION DATA:
WLN recently signed an agreement with Professional Media Service Corporation (PMSC) that permits WLN to make PMSC's original media cataloging data available to libraries online and through CD-ROM products produced by WLN. PMSC is a leading wholesale distributor to libraries of audio-visual materials including video (VHS and laserdisc) recordings and compact disc and cassette sound recordings (music, audiobooks, children's, and spoken). PMSC, which represents more than 6,700 producers, provides cataloging for all the materials it distributes. All media materials are originally cataloged using AACR2 rules and LC name and subject authorities. The company currently catalogs new items at the rate of 2,000-3,000 each month. WLN adds these records to its online database on a weekly basis.

YANKEE BOOK PEDDLER AGREEMENT:
WLN and Yankee Book Peddler (YBP), an international full-service bookseller specializing in U.S. academic book approval plans and library technical processing, have agreed to share cataloging information. YBP has provided WLN with an unrestricted license to use its upgrades to LC monograph records and Tables of Contents. WLN adds these upgraded CIP records to its database weekly. In return, WLN has allowed YBP unrestricted access to its database.

SPANISH LANGUAGE CATALOGING:
WLN has formed a partnership with Libros Sin Fronteras, a Northwest distributor of Spanish language books, to provide cataloging for distribution with the books. Libros Sin Fronteras concentrates on materials from Spanish-speaking, Latin American countries. The books deal with a variety of subject including literature, health, parenting, biographies, history, and culture as well as translations of popular U.S. titles. WLN catalogs materials in accordance with AACR2 and LC name and subject authorities. Records are created on and will reside in WLN's online database. WLN delivers the bibliographic records in USMARC format on diskette or electronically via FTP over the Internet to customers. Records can be customized to meet local system specifications.

More information on WLN and these topics is available at WLN's home page on the World Wide Web: http://www.wln.com/

Return to Table of Contents

As the newly appointed Conference Reports Editor it is my responsibility to solicit reports from conferences, meetings, workshops, etc. which may be of interest to the audiovisual cataloging community and you, the OLAC membership. Conference reports editors, I am told, cannot live on observer and liaison reports alone (though we are EXTREMELY grateful to our OLAC liaisons and observers who volunteer oodles of their time to keep us informed).

If you have attended a conference, meeting, discussion group, workshop, etc., which you feel may be of interest to your OLAC colleagues, please consider submitting a report for the OLAC Newsletter. Not only will you get a chance to see your name in print, but you'll also be contributing to the exchange of ideas and information that keeps OLAC's grassroots growing.

Reports can be submitted to me via e-mail, fax, or computer disk. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions and be gentle, I'm a bit mouse-impaired, but have aspirations of being a computer mouseketeer some day.

Return to Table of Contents

This full-day workshop will prepare participants to create OCLC-MARC bibliographic records for electronic resources that are available on the Internet. Electronic resources include remote computer programs and data files in a wide range of subject areas and formats. Instruction will include: complete application of AACR2R Chapter 9 (Computer Files) with reference to OCLC's guidelines "Cataloging Internet Resources" and relevant application of Chapter 21 (Access Points), LCSH headings, and MARC Field 856. There will also be an opportunity to create a catalog record from surrogate material for an actual Internet resource.

Instructor: Ann Sandberg-Fox, Consultant (formerly Senior Descriptive Cataloger for Computer Files, Library of Congress)

Date: May 2 9:30a.m.-4:00p.m.

Place: CAPCON Training & Education Center
111 19th Street NW Suite 1140
Washington, DC 20036

Fee: $140 (CAPCON Full and Affiliate Members: $110)

(Posted to the Autocat list in Feb., 1997 by Anne Harrison, CAPCON Library Network.
There were about 5 spaces still open as of April 1.)

Return to Table of Contents

In November 1995 the Library of Congress announced new language codes to be incorporated into the 1996 edition of the USMARC Code List for Languages. Among the new codes is a newly established one for Sign languages: sgn. The code is a general one used to indicate "sign language" in a generic sense. Use of this code in bibliographic records indicates materials containing a sign language or the representation of a sign language. The particular sign system present is stated in a 546 field (Language Note).

If the sole medium of communication is a sign language, e.g., a book containing pictures of the handshape of each letter of a particular sign system, or a videorecording that is signed, use the code for Sign languages in the fixed field.

When the medium of communication includes a sign language or its representation as well as one or more other languages, judge whether the sign language or its representation is substantial. If so, assign language codes in an 041 field for all the languages, including the one for Sign languages. The important thing is to indicate whether sign language is present or not, rather than to worry about predominance or other discriminations more easily determined for other languages. If predominance is apparent, code for the predominant language in the fixed field and as the first code in 041 $a. If such discriminations are not readily apparent, assign codes in English alphabetical order, using the first code in the fixed field.

Use the 546 Language Note to state the particular sign system, e.g., American Sign language, British Sign language. Formulate the note to reflect the situation, i.e., use terminology to distinguish between cases in which the content of the whole work is signed, whether as the sole medium of communication or in conjunction with one or more others, and those in which sign language is present but the whole work is not signed (or it is not clear whether it is). For example, if the sole medium of communication in a videorecording is a sign language, then it would be appropriate to express that in the note as "Signed in [name of sign system]." If a videorecording includes open signing (i.e., a sign language interpreter appears in a separate frame), record the note as "Open signed in [name of sign system]." For those situations that are less straight forward, for example a book in which both a language and a sign language occur, possibly a dictionary or a manual, use in the 546 field the more general statement "Includes sign language; the sign system represented is [name of sign system]." If it cannot be determined what sign system has been used, record an appropriate note indicating that the item is signed but not specifying the sign system (i.e., "Includes sign language."; "Open signed.").

Questions about these guidelines for applying the sign language code should be addressed to:

Return to Table of Contents

There have been many discussions on Autocat and elsewhere about videos with captions (both closed and open), videos described by Descriptive Video Service, intertitles, videos that are signed, etc., and I have received letters and email requests for help with these kinds of material. I in turn appealed on 7 Jan. 1997 to Glenn Patton at OCLC.

After some discussion with me, with Jay Weitz, Eric Childress, and others at OCLC, and with Harriet Harrison and Kay Guiles at LC, Glenn clarified the problem as follows: "What I think we're looking at here is a continuum of the language aspects of moving image materials that moves from title cards and intertitles ... in silent films, to dubbing in another language, to subtitles in another language, to subtitles in the same language (which is really what traditional closed captioning is), to signing in the same or another language, to audio description, etc." He goes on to include videos with sound track in English but closed captions in Spanish (e-mail dated 7 Feb. 1997).

His reasoning has persuaded LC to change their policy so that all these kinds of materials are to be included in MARC field 546 as language notes. An internal LC statement has been prepared [an external statement will follow] that adds to the existing directives on field 546: "... or that state any special aspects of an item related to communicating its content, such as captioning or signing, whether the specific name of a language is given or not; ..."

This information was communicated to the AV cataloging community at OLAC meetings held Feb. 14-15, 1997, in Washington, D.C. in conjunction with ALA Midwinter. [Thanks to all involved for such a speedy solution]

A message on Autocat from LC CPSO (12 Feb 1997) contains guidelines for applying the language code for sign language. It states "Use the 546 language note to state the particular sign system ... Formulate the note to reflect the situation ..." (See From CPSO memo dated 12 Feb 1997)

• Rule number
  An LCRI published in CSB 32, Spring 1986, added an example to AACR2 7.7B2 as follows:
  Closed-captioned for the hearing impaired

  Form of notes
  In June, 1995, JSC approved an example to be added to 7.7B2, deleting the last four words of that given in the LCRI, resulting in the note:

  Closed-captioned

  JSC refused, however, to add notes for open signed or audio-enhanced material.

  We may use our own judgment in the need for a note and the wording used in such a note. (AACR2R 1.7A3, 1.7A5, 0.14) The recent CPSO directive on sign languages states this nicely: "Formulate the note to reflect the situation ... "

  Examples:

  Closed-captioned
  Open captioned
  Captioned
  With captions
  Includes captions and intertitles
  Signed in American Sign Language
  Spanish on second sound track
  Described for the visually impaired

  MARC field for language notes
  MARC field 546 is to be used for all language notes. One might also consider expanding the 538 used to state "VHS" or "VHS format". As I understand it, nearly every TV and VCR manufactured after 1988 is designed with an SAP (second audio program) switch that is needed for the videos prepared by the Descriptive Video Service. And those TVs made after Sept. 1993 are supposed to have a switch to display closed captions. I've heard complaints from users who didn't see captions. They may not have had the correct equipment, or may not have known about the switches.

  Examples:

  VHS; to hear description must have equipment with SAP switch
  VHS; to see closed captions must have special equipment or equipment made after 1993

  Subject headings

  We have available for our use:

  Video recordings for the hearing impaired
  Video recordings for the visually handicapped

  Also in the authority file:

  Audiodescription
  Sign language
  American Sign Language
  British Sign Language

  OLAC CAPC might prepare proposals for LC to add appropriate subject headings for the other types of material here considered.

  Fixed field codes
  The code "sgn" added for sign language in Nov. 1995. The CPSO memo reminds us to use the 041 when there is a spoken language and the video is also signed.
  Should there be codes for these other "languages"?

  Edition statement
  Are these materials new editions? Yes, when compared to the same title without the captioning, description, or second language. If they carry an edition statement, transcribe it. If not, supply one.

  Types of material included
  While all these examples, and most of the discussion, has focused on video, there are possibilities for a language note, a fixed field code, and subject access when cataloging other types of materials, such as a document written in Gregg-Pittman shorthand.

From CPSO memo dated 12 Feb 1997

Formulate the note to reflect the situation, i.e., use terminology to distinguish between cases in which the content of the whole work is signed, whether as the sole medium of communication or in conjunction with one or more others, and those in which sign language is present but the whole work is not signed (or it is not clear whether it is). For example, if the sole medium of communication in a videorecording is a sign language, then it would be appropriate to express that in the note as "Signed in [name of sign system]." If a videorecording includes open signing (i.e., a sign language interpreter appears in a separate frame), record the note as "Open signed in [name of sign system]." For those situations that are less straight forward, for example a book in which both a language and a sign language occur, possibly a dictionary or a manual, use in the 546 field the more general statement "Includes sign language; the sign system represented is [name of sign system]." If it cannot be determined what sign system has been used, record an appropriate note indicating that the item is signed but not specifying the sign system (i.e., "Includes sign language."; "Open signed.").

Return to Table of Contents

Suggest a new title for the Questions and Answers column. Please! Send your suggestion(s) to the column editor or the newsletter editor by May 1. The editors will make the final decision and will award a book by Nancy B. Olson to the winner. If there are multiple winning entries, the prize will be awarded to one randomly drawn winner.

Return to Table of Contents

[??QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS??] COLUMN
Nancy B. Olson
nbolson@msus1.msus.edu

Feel free to send or email me your questions, with as much background information, photocopies of information, and/or whatever documentation you have. I'll answer each question that comes to me, either in the column and/or directly back to you. I will use questions from the sessions that follow each of the OLAC business meetings. I also monitor Autocat, Emedia, Intercat and the music library list and will use questions from those lists as appropriate.

While OLAC includes the words "audiovisual cataloging" in its name, we have always interpreted "audiovisual" broadly; sometimes very broadly. As an example, of the four questions directed at the panel in Washington, D.C., 1 was on maps, 1 on serial holdings, and 1 on computer databases. The remaining question was related to videos.

I will have the help of a number of others in answering your questions. Edward Swanson (Minnesota Historical Society) has explained cataloging rules to me with great patience for many years. Glenn Patton has answered OCLC-related questions since the AV format began in 1976, or has found someone who would do so. Jay Weitz and now Eric Childress are other OCLC friends of OLAC. And Harriet Harrison and Kay Guiles at LC helped us -- in a matter of days early in February! -- solve a problem of language notes for videos, and have expressed their willingness to continue to be of service.

Send your questions and documentation to me at the email address given above, or to Nancy B. Olson, Library Services and Information Technology, PO Box 8419 -- MSU 19, Mankato MN 56002-8419 (or phone 507-389-2155). The panel at Midwinter included Sheila Intner, Ann Sandberg-Fox, John Attig, Ed Glazier, Glenn Patton, Nancy B. Olson, and moderator Bobby Ferguson. I have brief notes, with no indication of who said what, but will try to indicate the substance of the questions and answers.

The first question related to serial holdings when one has the title in paper and on CD-ROM; the questioner's users wanted the holdings all on the same bib record. It was pointed out that the CONSER interim guidelines, as an option, permit computer file holdings on the record for a paper serial. At that point the discussion opened up to further questions about adding holdings for different kinds of microforms, and what about the disc that includes back issues of several titles on one CD-ROM? There were comments about how different systems could or could not handle holdings for multiple versions, patron access, and "friendly" systems/cataloging. The general feeling seemed to be to go ahead and put all holdings, whether for paper, microform, CD-ROM, or online access, on one record following the CONSER interim guidelines, if your system could handle it.

The next question was about cataloging of databases or any electronic resources that are updated. Feeling was strong that these be cataloged as monographs with notes explaining that the title is updated along with any information on frequency (use 500, not 310 in OCLC) and extent of updating. These would be cataloged as computer files, and any serial-like characteristics could be coded in an 006.

A questioner is being asked to catalog copies of programs in the video series Discovery. They have permission to copy these programs and retain them for two years after the program was broadcast. The question is how to keep track of this. Glenn pointed out the 583 note for action would be the logical place for this information, and would allow easy retrieval of those bib records involved.

A library has two sets of blue line prints of old Sanborn maps for their town. Each set shows one map on several sheets (one part of the map on each of the sheets). One of the sets was cut up and assembled into the map. The questioner wanted to know how to handle this cut-and-pasted map. After some discussion, it was agreed the simplest method was to catalog the first set as purchased, and treat the other as copy 2 with a note that it has been assembled into one map.

Because of time limitations we were unable to discuss the current LC treatment of interactive multimedia, or possible topics for research grants -- to be continued?

Return to Table of Contents
Top

Last modified: December 1997
URL: http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/newsletters/...
HTML version created by OLAC Web Manager
Return to OLAC Newsletter index