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

OLAC CATALOGER'S JUDGMENT
Jay Weitz


Nancy Olson, who founded OLAC and served as its first President, who was the first Editor of this Newsletter, and who has contributed more to the longevity of both organization and publication than just about everyone else combined, announced in the previous issue that she wished to relinquish her editorship of the Question and Answer column. A more deserved rest has rarely been requested or granted. It has been my honor and privilege to consider Nancy colleague, mentor, and friend since the earliest days of my own career at OCLC, when she was a Visiting Scholar beginning in October 1982. The broad authority with which she always spoke and wrote regarding what we then called AV cataloging remains unchallenged and unequalled. So it was with humble trepidation that I offered my own name as a candidate to fill Nancy’s (figuratively) enormous shoes in editing this column. And it was with shock at their uncharacteristic lack of judgment that I was eventually informed that the OLAC Board had accepted my offer.

As a member of OLAC since its fairly early days, a frequent contributor to the Newsletter as far back as 1984, a regular workshop presenter at OLAC meetings for at least a dozen years, and the official OCLC Liaison to OLAC since June 2001, I figure I need little introduction to most of you. In fact, I fear that taking on this additional role may be the event by which I finally wear out my welcome among my valued OLAC colleagues. Risking that, however, I now offer you the new OLAC Q&A column. Its format will generally be a simple question and answer sequence, with occasional follow-ups. Each Q&A set will have a brief descriptive heading. Many of the questions will have appeared originally on the OLAC online discussion list, but I am also happy to entertain questions sent directly to me at <jay_weitz@oclc.org>. In either case, you will not have to wait until the next OLAC Newsletter to have your question answered. Those that come directly to me will be answered in as timely a fashion as I can manage, and I will honor any requests not to include them in the column. Neither have I any intention of stifling the often lively discussion that a question might generate on the OLAC List. I will also not hesitate to steal any really good answers from others on the List (with permission and attribution, of course). Likewise, I will refer questions to experts in the field on those frequent occasions when my own ignorance becomes painfully obvious.

So, with tribute to Nancy, appreciation to the OLAC Board, and thanks to all questioners, let us continue to reason together over a few current cataloging conundrums.

Jay Weitz
Consulting Database Specialist and OCLC Liaison to OLAC


Field 006 for Integrating Resources

 Question When cataloging Websites, what codes should be used for "Frequency" and "Regularity" in the 006 field for the serial or continuing resource aspects?

Answer For remotely accessed electronic integrating resources, "Frequency" will most often be coded blank (for sites that are updated less frequently than daily, but for which none of the other codes is appropriate). "Regularity" will, as a consequence, most often be coded "x". On the OCLC Website is "Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines" <http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresources/default.htm>, which gives a little more detail on the serial 006 in the "Integrating Resources" section, third bullet.


Video Main Entry

Question I have been searching through different resources but could not find an authoritative document that answers this question. I vaguely remember that when a videorecording is strictly filmed from a live performance with nothing added, you should treat it like a sound recording specifically in terms of establishing a main entry--composer as main entry. Am I making this up?

Answer The authoritative document you are looking for is Cataloging Musical Moving Image Materials, edited by Lowell E. Ashley, which is Music Library Association Technical Report no. 25, published in 1996 (OCLC #33947073). Its recommendations are complex and detailed, as you can imagine, but generally speaking, most filmed/videorecorded live performances have responsibilities so diffuse that that they would most often be entered under title.


"Tinted and Toned" Videos

Question How would you enter the 300 $b color description for a video that says "tinted & toned" on the videocassette label? I am leaning toward AACR2’s guidance, which says, "Give b&w for a sepia print", but was curious to know just what "tinted & toned" means.

Answer According to LC's Archival Moving Image Materials (2nd ed.), "tinting" is an alteration of the film base achieved by dipping the film into a chemical bath to get a "dominant hue", often for scenic atmosphere. "Toning" is a related alteration of film emulsion that differs from tinting in that toning leaves the clear portions of the film unaffected. Both methods were used to enhance early black and white films. In the physical description, describe such films as "b&w" as per 7.5C4. Also add a note according to 7.7B10c indicating "Tinted & toned".


Electronic Reproductions
Question We have received our first monographic e-resources that are not from netLibrary. These are encyclopedias that are available through Gale. The link we have takes you to a search interface, and you can see the text of the articles (after searching) as html and as pdf, so it does include a "reproduction" of the whole encyclopedia, although it does not appear that you can browse page by page. Does this count as a reproduction for LCRI 1.11A? If so, based on the OCLC BF&S ("Do not create a new record if you retrieve a record coded for the reproduction. Instead, edit the record for local use"), I assume we should attach our holding for the Gale database to the NetLibrary reproduction records for these encyclopedias. Is this correct?

Answer OCLC allows you either to enter a record for an electronic reproduction or to simply add to a record for a print version a reference to an electronic version. (Please see the "Separate Records Versus Single Record" section of "Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines" at <http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresources/default.htm>. Although policies for serial records may be different, for non-serials I consider different versions of the same electronic resource available from different publishers to be justifiably separate records. You always have the option of editing an existing record for local use in such a case as you describe, but that is not required. Generally, I think of only PDF (and similar such files that retain the pagination, look, and feel of the print original) as being eligible for consideration as LCRI 1.11A electronic reproductions. Since you describe the encyclopedias in question as being available both as PDF and HTML, I would be disinclined to treat them as reproductions in the LCRI 1.11A sense.


DVD Dates
Question I have a question about what the proper codes are for assigning to the "Type of Date/Publication Status" (008/06) and the corresponding "Dates" (008/07-14) portions of the fixed field for DVDs. Nancy Olson says on p. 8 in the Guide to Cataloging DVDs Using AACR2r Chapters 7 and 9 that 008/06 should be coded "p" if the DVD "…contains exactly the same material as the original motion picture from which it was copied, and nothing has been added or changed" (an the 008/07-14 would then have two dates, the publication date as Date 1 and the film's original production date as Date 2). Olson goes on to explain that 008/06 should be coded "s," however, "…if there is a change in content ... anything from the addition of closed-captioning, to the addition of many special features that are typically found on a DVD" (the 008/07-14 would then only have the publication date as Date 1, with Date 2 being left blank). The problem is that I seem to be finding a lot of OCLC records that do not follow this practice. Typically the "Type of Date" is coded as "p", with two dates provided in Dates, even when the DVD includes closed-captioning or special features. OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards page for 008/06 <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/dtst.shtm> does not seem to be much help. Under the examples for the "p" coding option they include a VHS tape from MGM/CBS Home Video, with the explanation, "Identical content, but different medium (i.e., a videorecording of a motion picture) with a different release date". I can see how this might be the case, since VHS tapes do not typically include any added features (such as captioning or foreign language subtitles) or bonus content. DVDs are quite a different story, though, and I can understand Nancy Olson's rationale for coding these as new works with an "s" in 008/06 when they include extra material that was not included in film as originally released. Could it be that those catalogers who have coded 008/06 as "p" even when the DVD includes closed-captioning are merely (and incorrectly) following the precedent established with VHS tapes? Unfortunately, the Bib Formats and Standards page does not include any examples of DVDs in either the "p" or "s" coded examples, which would clarify things a bit, especially since OCLC does not further elaborate on what is meant by "identical content". Am I justified in changing the coding of 008/06 from "p" to "s" (and the corresponding Dates 008/07-14 area) when I find such records in WorldCat and export them into my catalog? And should I report this "error" to OCLC every time I make the change? (If so, I expect I will be reporting an error for nearly every DVD record I export, since it seems to be so common.) What if my DVD includes in addition to the film itself only the original theatrical trailer and/or promotional trailers for other DVDs offered by the publisher, but does not include captioning or subtitles? Is that a new work to be coded "s" or is it an instance of a work with a later distribution date to be coded "p"? Any comments/suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated.

Answer Since the commercial advent of DVDs in late 1996/early 1997, the issue of the correct coding of dates has been a matter of great controversy in the Visual Materials community, including here on the OLAC discussion list. As you note, the OLAC DVD cataloging guide is pretty clear about the restricted use of "Type of Date" (008/06) code "p" and the preference for code "s" when there has been a (significant) change in content in the translation from film to DVD ("... anything from the addition of closed-captioning, to the addition of the many special features that are typically found on a DVD"). This is the policy that catalogers should be applying. You are encouraged to change incorrectly coded records as you are authorized to do so and/or report them as errors when appropriate. What exactly constitutes identical content is properly left to cataloger's judgment. Generally, I do not consider the simple addition of, say, the original theatrical trailer of a film (or any advertising trailers) to qualify the record for code "s". Extras such as interviews, "making of" documentaries, deleted scenes, and the like, however, would be considered significant new material. At least two reasons come to mind for the widespread miscoding in these cases. As you suggest, many catalogers are simply carrying over what they have generally done for such older video technologies as VHS. Although significant extra video material was not unheard of in the heyday of VHS and Beta, it was not terribly common, except for captioning. As far as I can recall, though, the Date question did not receive any serious discussion until DVDs came along with their huge capacity for presenting and giving easy access to additional data (relative to that of VHS or Beta). Perhaps just as much of a reason for the common error is that this DVD practice actually runs contrary to the parallel policy for sound recordings. With sound recordings, where compilations of previously released material are common, the date of the earliest recording or previous release is generally recorded in Date 2, with a corresponding "Type of Date" code. During the long discussions of this issue concerning DVDs, mine was a dissenting voice in the decision to basically ignore the history of a film in terms of fixed field coding when new material was added to a subsequent release in a new video medium. Citing the sound recording cataloging perspective, I argued that the date of the original was important to code and advocated applying the sound recording analogy to video cataloging. My position did not prevail, and I believe that the resulting inconsistency explains at least some of the confusion. I hope this clears some of that confusion up.


DVD With Video and Computer File Aspects

Question I have a DVD with additional DVD-ROM features. I have downloaded a record from OCLC that has two 007 fields. One is coded for the videorecording elements and the other is coded for the computer file elements. I have never seen anything like this before. The work is primarily a videorecording. I would like to know if it would be appropriate (correct, even) to delete the 007 for the computer file elements of this record and create an 006 field. The 300 describes the DVD (1 videodisc (140 min.) : sd., col. ; 4 3/4 in.), and the 007 is, after all, "physical description fixed field". I realize that the 007 is a repeatable field but is this the appropriate situation in which to repeat it?

Answer For resources that possess aspects of more than one bibliographic format--in this case, videorecording and computer file--multiple 007 fields may very well be appropriate. The presence of any 007 field, however, does not preclude the use of field 006 as well, in order to bring out the computer file aspects of the resource. You might think of the DVD-ROM properties as sort of accompanying material to the main DVD videorecording (albeit accompanying material that shares space on the same physical entity as the DVD video). As you have pointed out, the 007 field, in part, codes certain aspects of the physical description (using that term loosely). The 006 field, on the other hand, is an extension of the fixed field (including elements of the record Leader and its 008 field), and in OCLC at least, expands the record's accessibility in searches that are qualified by the bibliographic format of the 006. In the case you have described, it sounds as though both 007 fields and a computer file 006 are appropriate.

Follow-up Question I was doing really well until I got down to the point where you say to do both 007s AND an 006. Can you help me out with some sort of "cheating grid"?
DVD (a movie) + programs only accessible with a computer (PC)
007?
006?
(like the one described here would get two 007s and one 006?)

Book with 300 + $e DVD
007?
006?

DVD with 300 + $e Booklet
007?
006?
Any other combo?

Follow-up Answer Obviously, I should have been a bit more clear, and I apologize. One thing I neglected to say--and have been trying to find documented somewhere, but can't put my finger on it--is that for accompanying material, both the 006 and 007 would be optional, although recommended. (In OCLC documentation on the 006 and 007, the closest thing I can find is wording to the effect that the fields "can be used" for accompanying material, which at least implies optionality.) The inclusion of these fields is especially recommended in cases where there may be ambiguity about which component of a multipart publication may be considered the main one, as might happen with a book/DVD combination, for example. That being said, here are my recommendations on your instances.
DVD (a movie) + programs only accessible with a computer (PC) Book with 300 + $e DVD DVD with 300 + $e Booklet
I hope this helps clarify the issue.


Double-Sided DVDs
Question I am kind of new to the world of AV cataloging and have a question regarding the cataloging of double-sided DVDs. I have searched the archives of the OLAC-List and AUTOCAT and found a few opinions on this subject in 2000, but nothing more recent. I have been getting in quite a few DVDs recently that are double-sided. The records that I am pulling from OCLC seem to be conflicted on how to treat these items. They either:
  1. Put "double-sided" in the 300 $b. (For an example see the 25th anniversary ed. of Roots, o#48615043.)
  2. Put "double-sided" in the 538. (For an example see No man's land, o#49188765.)
  3. Do not include it in the record at all.
Though I am sure that they are there, I have not seen any yet that treat double-sided DVDs as Nancy Olson describes in the Guide to Cataloging DVDs Using AACR2r Chapters 7 and 9, General comments on DVDs. ("500 Standard version on one side, widescreen version on other side"). In the case of Roots, I am not sure how to apply this instruction, as it does not have different versions on each side. Each side is just a different numbered untitled episode, six in all. I suppose we could say something like "One episode per side", but that does not help us in the case of movies that are just very long and must be flipped over to continue. The point of all this is that we are currently in the process of reworking our local policies for media cataloging, and we would like to make a standard reference to whether or not a DVD is double-sided, but are not totally sure what field to put it in.

Answer In no case should such "double-sided" information be included in field 300 subfield $b, as 7.5C does not allow for it. This sort of information is appropriate (under 7.7B10) for field 538, as additional details following the identification of the videorecording format as "DVD" or alternatively as a general 500 note. Both Rule 1.7A5 and the OLAC DVD guidelines allow the combining of notes, so any notes about single- or dual-layer formatting may also be part of a field 538 or a separate 500. In case you are curious, the always informative "DVD Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)" of the "DVD Demystified" Website <http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html> sort of explains the difference between "double-sided" and "dual-layer" DVDs. The former must literally be flipped over to play the second side. The latter does not need to be flipped but will change automatically (and in theory, seamlessly) from one layer to the other when necessary.


Printouts of Textual Electronic Resources
Question Does OCLC have any cataloging guidelines for the printouts of Web-accessible PDFs? We are in the position of having to add more and more of these to our collection and we do not know whether we should follow the pattern for other kinds of reproductions (i.e., describe the original, which in this case is the electronic resource, with a 533 note for the reproduction--the print document) or perhaps just treat them as print items, maybe with a note for the URI. Is there any official word on this?

Answer Under the current guidelines, a computer printout of a primarily textual Web resource would be coded as Type Code "a" and would require a Computer File 006 for the electronic aspects. LCRI 1.11A would apply to such printouts. This means that the (published) Web document would be described in the 245 (omit subfield $h [electronic resource]), 250, 260, and 4XX, as appropriate. The printout should be described in a 533 note; describe the item as a "Printout" in subfield $a; include a subfield $n along the lines of, "Description based on printout of Website on Mar. 19, 2004". The appropriate Computer File 007 would be created, as well as field 856 for the URL (with second indicator "1" for "version of resource"). Code the "Form" fixed field as "r" for regular print reproduction (not "s" for "electronic"). The institution should also be quite sure that printing out such materials is lawful and done with any necessary permission. (It would also be wise to include the fact of such permission in the bibliographic record.)


Genre Terms
Question This is a question about using 655 with LC authorized headings like "Comedy films", "Adventure films", etc. From your workshop documents from past OLAC conferences, I notice that these are included in bibliographic records as 650s, while other terms are in 650 2nd indicator 7 with subfield $2 "[source]". But I was under the impression that: (1) If we use these (or any other established LC authorities) as genre terms for videos, they should technically be 655s rather than 650s; and (2) if we use them as 650s, they should have a 2nd indicator of zero; no $2 delimiter is needed. As another confusion, OLAC's guide for cataloging DVDs (which appeared in 2002; accessible at: <http://www.olacinc.org/capc/dvd/dvdprimer0.html>) indeed presents these LC headings in 655 fields, but also inputs 2nd indicator 7 and "$2 lcsh". Our institution is currently trying to tighten up our local policies and refresh documentation, so advice would be helpful. Thanks.

Answer Terms such as these may be entered either as subject headings in field 650 or as genre terms in field 655. The choice is yours and may depend upon the capabilities of your individual local system (for instance, whether it differentiates 650s and 655s in terms of indexing, etc.). Remember also that in the MARC format, 655s can generate the display constant "Genre:" in the OPAC. In field 650, legitimate LC subject headings should be coded second indicator zero. In field 655, however, ever since the OCLC-MARC Format Update implemented in May 2003 (see Technical Bulletin 249) there is now the choice to use the second indicator 7 and subfield "$2 lcsh" combination or simply the second indicator zero for genre terms that also happen to be LC subject headings. Either practice is acceptable in field 655.


Type Code and Type of Material Code Agreement

Question I am cataloging postcards and want to use "i" in TMat in the Visual Materials workform, but I get an "invalid code" message. Any ideas?

Answer The Visual Materials workform's default "Type Code" (Leader/06) is "g" (for projected media), but remember that there are three other valid Type Codes within Visual Materials format: "k" (for two-dimensional nonprojected graphics), "r" (for three dimensional artifacts and realia), and "o" (for kits). Change the default "g" to Type "k" and the system should accept your "Type of Material" (008/33) code "i" for picture.

Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section

Last updated: September 20, 2004
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/sept04/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu