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

OLAC CATALOGER’S JUDGMENT
By Jay Weitz


Coded Data: When Simplification May Result in Complication

Question: All the discussion about LC doing away with series and the concern that possibly even subjects will be the next to go leads one to wonder if cataloging could be made easier and faster, so that there would be more time for quality series and subject work. For instance, one target of a simplification effort could be the Fixed Field. What is the point of most of it? Much of the information found there is duplicated in the variable fields. This seems especially true of the Fixed Field elements labeled (in OCLC MARC) as Cont, Ills, Conf, GPub, DtSt, Indx, Ctry, and Dates. Are these really necessary? Other Fixed Field elements of questionable use include Fest, Audn, Biog, LitF, Ctrl, MRec. The same goes for the 006 and 007. Do patrons and librarians really need or want this information?

Answer: Certain elements of the Fixed Field (Leader and 008), 006, and 007 play crucial roles in indexing and in record matching, both for Batchloading of records and for de-duplication of the WorldCat database. The presence and correct coding of those elements assist greatly in accomplishing all of that. In many cases, these coded elements concisely convey information that otherwise may not appear at all in a bibliographic record or that may appear only in more cryptic form in one or more places. Here is just one simple example of how useful a coded value can be for record matching (in the attempt to prevent record duplicates) and for duplicate resolution, even when some of the information appears in human-readable form in the body of the record. According to both OCLC’s "When to Input and New Record" and the ALCTS document "Differences Between, Changes Within", differences in the place of publication within the same country do not justify separate records. Imagine the nightmare of trying to equate every possible place name within even a single country, especially when the name of the state, territory, province, or country may not even be stated explicitly in the 260 field. But supply a corresponding code for each country (or state, or territory, or province) and the machine task becomes relatively simple. Admittedly, the value of some of the elements in question is debatable. Nevertheless, there have been systems or processes that have used many of the even more obscure elements. All this being said, in the spirit of the efficiency in cataloging, it is worth noting that some of the Fixed Field elements (AccM, Audn, Biog, Comp, Cont, Ills, Indx, LitF, among others) are optional.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Motion Picture Uniform Title as 130 or 730

Question: When a DVD contains significant added features, such as documentaries, interviews, etc., it would seem that the uniform title of the motion picture should be put in the 730, as a related title. With all the material, it seems as if the entire DVD should be judged as a different work than the motion picture itself. Despite this logic, there are many records where the uniform title is still found in the 130 field.

Answer: As far as I can tell, the rules do not address this question, but here is my own take. The motion picture is generally considered to be the main content of a DVD, even when it is accompanied by other filmed material such as interviews, documentaries, and so on. This view is reflected in the fact that the main motion picture is described in the title and statement of responsibility area, but any description of accompanying material is usually relegated to notes. This treatment suggests that when a uniform title is needed for the main motion picture content, it should generally be a 130 rather than a 730. The issue of whether the presence of significant accompanying material makes a motion picture a bibliographically "different work" than the same motion picture without the accompaniments is a factor in relation to the Type of Date (008/06) coding, especially for DVDs. DVDs without significant additional material are usually considered DtSt "p", whereas DVDs with significant additional material are usually considered to be new works in that limited sense, and are coded DtSt "s".

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Television Series and Episode Titles

Question: Our institution receives videos of episodes from television series where the title of the TV series does not appear on the chief source with the title of the episode. For instance, with an episode from a TV program called InterChange, the program title appears on the screen, but the episode title ("Global warming") only appears by itself on the disc and container. According to Appendix I of LCRI 25.5B, the title field is supposed to be formulated as:
        245   10   Television program title. $p Episode title.

However, since title information is supposed to be transcribed from the chief source, and the program and episode titles do not appear together, would this be legitimate? An alternative would be using square brackets for parts of the title that did not appear on the chief source:
        245   10   InterChange. $p [Global warming].

What would you recommend?

Answer: If the television series title appears in the chief source and the episode title does not, the episode title would be bracketed in Field 245.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Television Episode Uniform Titles According to LCRI 25.5B Appendix I

Question: On a DVD of an episode from the PBS show Now, the chief source (disc) only shows, "Now, February 3, 2006". (This is the date the program was broadcast.) The part title, "Artificial Intelligence?" appears only on the back of the container. A check of the Website confirms that "Artificial Intelligence" is the part title. In trying to apply the PCC practice on "Assigning Uniform Titles (Cataloging a Television Program Itself)" in Appendix I of LCRI 25.5B, it says: "When an individual title is used and a numeric designation is available, provide access to the numeric designation through varying title". So in this case, would you recommend setting it up as:

        130 0   Now (Television program : 2005). $p Artificial intelligence?
        245 10 Now. $p [Artificial intelligence?]
        246 1   $i Title from disc surface: $a Now. $n February 3, 2006


Or, here is an alternative resolution, with the broadcast date as a numeric designation:

        130 0   Now (Television program : 2005). $n February 3, 2006.
        245 10 Now. $n February 3, 2006
        246 1   $i Title from container: $a Artificial intelligence?

(Another rendering of the dates used as a numeric designation could be: "2006-02-03". Could you also address which of these styles is correct?)

Continuing with this topic: there do not appear to be any records in OCLC that follow Appendix I, even though it has been out for more than a year. Most of the television records online still leave the uniform title in the 730, even if the program title is mentioned in the 245. Other records for Now and Frontline/World episodes (that tend not to have part titles) treat the broadcast dates as a numeric designation or as other title information, and do not format it as [yyyy-mm-dd] as instructed in the Appendix. Also, records for feature films tend not to include uniform titles qualified by language if the film is dubbed or contains tracks in other languages. Do you have any insights on why this might be the case? Also, do you think it is worth Enhancing video records to reflect the LCRI?

Answer: According to LCRI 25.5B Appendix I, the first choice in putting together a structured "Comprehensive title/Individual title" is to use an individual title when the individual titles are not intended to be viewed consecutively. It goes on to say: "In the absence of an individual title, use a numeric designation (e.g., episode number, show number, production number). When an individual title is used and a numeric designation is available, provide access to the numeric designation through varying title". Following some examples, it repeats and goes on: "In the absence of an individual title, use a numeric designation. In the absence of both a numeric designation and an individual title, use the date of telecast in the form [yyyy-mm-dd]". This careful differentiation in terminology suggests to me that a date of telecast should not be considered to be a "numeric designation" in this sense. So it appears that the first option above would be in accord with the rules. However, it should also be noted that, in a strict reading of the rule, there would be no 246 in this case.

While this version of the LCRI is dated April 2005, it was not actually distributed until much later in 2005, as is LC’s common practice. The most recent version of LCRI 25.5B prior to this one was dated June 2004. That version had considerably shorter and less detailed sections on radio, TV, and motion picture uniform titles, and did not include the Appendix at all. The sections did not include the "Comprehensive title/Individual title" practice, the "[yyyy-mm-dd]" date convention, or any discussion of different language versions. It should also be noted that the new Appendix describes PCC practice (and occasionally contrasts it to LC practice, using Archival Moving Image Materials rather than AACR2). As such, non-PCC institutions are not obligated to follow the Appendix. In several of the footnotes to the Appendix, PCC participants are told: "Do not make changes solely to reflect new practice. Limit changes to those stimulated by other conditions". This guidance leads me to think that Enhance institutions choosing to follow the new Appendix probably should not be Enhancing records simply to reflect the new practices, either, unless other substantive changes are being made to the record. Please use your good judgment, as always.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Describing DVDs

Question: Searching a medical DVD accompanying a book has brought to light the fact that a lot of NLM records use "DVD-video" in the physical description instead of "videodisc". Moreover, some of those same records do not contain a 538 field with "DVD". Can you explain this situation?

Answer: AACR2 7.5B1 allows the option of a so-called "term in common usage to record the specific format of the physical carrier". The example cited in AACR2 is "1 DVD-video". The Chapter 7 section of OLAC’s "Guide to Cataloging DVDs Using AACR2r Chapters 7 and 9" <http://www.olacinc.org/capc/dvd/dvdprimer2.html> was last updated on April 7, 2003 and so does not take into consideration this particular option, which was part of the 2004 Update to AACR2. Regarding the absence of field 538 in some records, my guess is that some catalogers saw a 538 with "DVD" as redundant if "DVD" was already noted in the physical description.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Where Do Narrators Go?

Question: If a performer (narrator) is not on screen, does his or her name go into Field 511 or 508? Where can the rule or guidance about this be found?

Answer: MARC 21 used to make a distinction between on-screen narrators in Field 511 and voice-over (off-screen) narrators in Field 508. As a result of MARBI Discussion Paper 2001-DP01 <http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2001/2001-dp01.html>, however, all narrators now go in Field 511.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Language Fixed Field for Dubbed Video


Question: For an anime item with both the original Japanese language soundtrack and an English language dubbed track, would "jpn" or "eng" be used in for "Language" in the Fixed Field? Also, could you give an idea where documentation about this may be found?

Answer: If both the original language soundtrack and a dubbed English language soundtrack are available, MARC 21 seems to say that the translated (in this case, dubbed) language takes precedence over the original language in the Language Fixed Field (008/35-37). This is the relevant excerpt from MARC21 for Field 041, under subfield $a: "If an item is the original with an accompanying translation, subfield $a contains the code(s) for the language(s) of the translation and the original(s). The code(s) for the original is also recorded in subfield $h".

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Frequency and Regularity for Integrating Resources

Question: In cataloging Integrating Resources, what is the difference between the coding for Regularity, "unknown" versus "completely irregular"? Even though in many cases the regularity and frequency are unknown, Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines implies that "completely irregular" is the preferred coding: "More commonly, when the resource is updated less frequently than daily and none of the other Frequency codes apply, use ‘blank’ for Frequency and ‘x’ for Regularity". Could you clarify which is preferred?

Answer: First, remember that both Frequency and Regularity were originally limited to what used to be called the Serials Format. (I do not pretend to understand the history or application of those particular codes in general.) When Integrating Resources practices were being drawn up in consultation with LC several years ago, the experts were constrained to use the existing serials-oriented coding. It was determined at that time that, for Integrating Resources without a specifically-stated frequency and regularity corresponding to any of the other existing codes, the appropriate coding would be "blank" for Frequency (Continuing Resource 006/01, 008/18) and "x" for Regularity (Continuing Resource 006/02, 008/19). It is my understanding that when "u" for "unknown" is used in either position, "u" must be used in both positions. It is also my understanding that when a cataloger knows the frequency to be "irregular" (as is commonly the case with Integrating Resources), it is not by definition "unknown"; instead, it is known to be irregular.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Placement of the GMD

Question: Our institution is starting work on a fairly large project (camera rolls put in streaming video). The original cataloging for this project will include only subfields $a, $b, $h, and $n in the 245 field. In working towards a standard application of the cataloging for these items, there is some difference of opinion as to the order of the elements in the Title Field. Of the two examples below, which would be the correct placement of the GMD?

        245 12  A portrait of the Ozarks : $b the Shannon County Film Digitization Project. $n Camera roll 162 $h [electronic resource].
or
        245 12  A portrait of the Ozarks $h [electronic resource] : $b the Shannon County Film Digitization Project. $n Camera roll 162.

This is the first time any streaming video segments have been cataloged here, and there are a lot of them to do, so your advice would be appreciated.

Answer: Current rules place the GMD following the last part of the title proper, which means after subfield $a, if there is no subfield $n or $p, or after any subfields $n and/or $p, if they are present. Therefore, both of the title examples included above are actually transcribed incorrectly according to LCRI 1.1E5, which reads: "When cataloging a section title, give other title information that is appropriate for the section title in the title and statement of responsibility area. Give other title information that is appropriate for the main title in a note (cf. Rule 1.1B9)". That means the correct transcription would actually be:

        245 12  A portrait of the Ozarks. $n Camera roll 162 $h [electronic resource].
        500      "The Shannon County Film Digitization Project".

There are some possible alternatives, however. If you look back at the MOUG Newsletter, no. 63 (May 1996) p. 13 <http://www.musicoclcusers.org/Newsletter/63May1996.pdf> (which was also included as Q&A 4.58 in my book, Cataloger’s Judgment, published in 2004 by Libraries Unlimited), there is a note from LC’s Bob Ewald that reads in part:
"... LC does not separately subfield a subtitle that comes between the main title and the part title. Instead, the subtitle is treated as part of the main title (e.g., "$a Piano rolls, Gershwin’s legacy. $n Volume 2, $p Early years $h …" or "$a Piano rolls--Gershwin’s legacy. $n Volume 2, $p Early years $h …") or the subtitle is omitted from the title and statement of responsibility area and given in a note".
Although it seems that LCRI 1.1E5, which dates from 2002, was intended to supersede that former option, that part of the RI is labeled "LC practice", and I think the comma (or dash) option could still be used.

Depending upon the exact character, placement, and meaning of the phrase "Shannon County Film Digitization Project" however, other possibilities also come to mind. It could be part of an "At head of title" note, or otherwise appear in Field 246 as additional title information. It could be a 500 quoted note, as the LCRI suggests, with a corresponding 740 title entry. If the phrase is the formal name of the project, it may be worth considering creating a 710 entry for it. It could be regarded as a legitimate series title.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Basing Dates for an Electronic Resource on its Print Equivalent

Question: In cataloging some Integrating Resources, a few questions concerning date information have arisen. The questions concern the online version of the Integrating Resource, Tax Management Portfolios Series, published by Tax Management Inc. The print version of these portfolios is issued in loose-leaf format and updated on an irregular basis by replacement pages. In the print version, the date situation is clear. Whenever there is a new edition, a new portfolio is published. The numbering of the portfolio indicates the new edition; for example, a current edition might be numbered 572-3rd and the next 572-4th, etc. However, in the online version, the copyright dates are completely different and do not carry the same copyright dates as the print version. The reason for this is that the electronic portfolios are physically located on a TM Website called "BNA Tax Management Library" <http://library.bnatax.com>. All the pages on this Website carry the same copyright dates, c1997-2006. When cataloging an electronic portfolio, it is not clear which dates should be used. Obviously, whenever it is clear that the first iteration began this year, 2006 would be used as the date of publication. However, for a portfolio that began its print publication in 1995 (based on the information from the print version), should the date information be given the following way?

        Dates: 1995, 9999?
        362 1  Began in 1995?

Is it acceptable to use the dates from the print edition because the text is exactly the same for both versions? Or should an approximate date, like 19uu, be used? Or should the following be used, based on the main site’s copyright dates, even for the portfolios that are known to have begun publication later than 1997, based on the print version?:

        Dates: 1997, 9999
        362 1  Began in 1997?

Would it be possible to add a note saying that "date information is based on print edition"?

Answer: Unfortunately, I cannot access the actual resources, so I am just able to make some guesses here. The copyright date or dates for the Website as a whole do not necessarily carry over to every individual document or catalog-able subset of that Website. It is not clear to me whether older versions of the online portfolios are replaced by newer versions or if they are each retained individually on the Website. If they are replaced, then the whole portfolio is an ongoing Integrating Resource that began whenever the first version/iteration was made available (and that could be as far back as the earliest copyright date for the site, or such date as the portfolio itself may indicate). If the portfolios are retained individually, then each would have a beginning date (and at some point, an ending date) that would presumably be some date since the whole site was made available. Because catalogers need to consult AACR2 Chapters 1, 9, and 12 for remotely accessed electronic integrating resources of a textual nature, I believe that one can use sources outside the resource itself (including print sources and information issued by the publisher, according to 9.0B) as a source of date information. If the beginning date of a portfolio is not found in the resource itself and is questionable, the date should be presented with a question mark. A note about the source of the date may not really be necessary, but could be helpful to add it anyway.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

No "Serial" 006 Field for Integrating Resources

Question: In following the OCLC "Guidelines for Integrating Resources" in Technical Bulletin 252, now that Bibliographic Level "i" has become available, changes in cataloging practices seem to be in order. There seems to be something missing in the guidance, however: instruction on what to do with the Serials 006 that had been entered in records according to the interim practice. Would it be correct now to delete the "interim 006" in those records, since the information is already in the new BLvl "i" workform?

Answer: Yes, that is correct. Because of the implementation of Bibliographic Level "i" and its use of the Continuing Resources (formerly Serials) workform and Fixed Field (008), the interim practice of using the monographic workform with a corresponding "serial" 006 field for integrating resources is no longer needed. As part of the follow-up to the OCLC-MARC Update documented in TB 252, OCLC will be converting as many of the existing interim practice records as can be safely identified within the next few months.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Links to Online Tables of Contents

Question: Would there be any objection to the inclusion of an 856 link to Google Book Search in bibliographic records? Our institution wants to give access to the books’ tables of contents and indexes.

Answer: It is fine to give access directly to an online table of contents via 856/41 with an introductory subfield $3 (see the example in MARC 21), or by using subfield $u in Field 505. However, it would be preferable not to add a link simply to Google Book Search in general.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

The Case of the Disappearing Web Site

Question: An electronic site cataloged by our institution years ago has disappeared. Instead of reporting the record to OCLC for deletion, is it correct to add notes that indicate it is no longer available? There seem to be good records in OCLC that do something like this. Does OCLC want some notification of these?

Answer: In the "Field 856" section of the document, "Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines" <http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresources/default.htm>, OCLC makes recommendations about dealing with electronic resources that are no longer accessible, as follows:
"LCRI 9.7B, marked ‘LC Practice’ deals with ‘Remote access electronic resources that are no longer available’. Because of OCLC’s indexing needs and its electronic address checking software, however, we suggest leaving URIs in Field 856 subfield $u and adding an appropriate subfield $z note under the following circumstances:

In both of these cases, change the 856 Second Indicator to blank."
There is no need to report these to OCLC unless there is a problem making the record change.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Uniform Title for Motion Picture

Question: Concerning uniform titles for motion pictures, would LCRI 25.5B Appendix I be applicable to nonfiction videos such as one here called "Plant reproduction", produced only for the video market (that is, not originally produced as films or produced on television)? It seems that this might fall under "motion pictures", but "motion picture" is not defined in AACR2. Since the title "Plant reproduction" conflicts with other works in OCLC with the same title, it seems that it would be a good idea to create a uniform title, using a qualifier to break the conflict with the other titles: "Plant reproduction (Motion picture)".

Answer: As I read LCRI 25.5B Appendix I, a uniform title may be created for this resource if the catalog against which the searching and cataloging is being done has a conflicting title. My reading of the use of the term "motion picture" in the RI comprises any moving image resource that has been "distributed theatrically, non-theatrically, as a home video, and/or aired on television", under which this clearly qualifies. Remember, however, that LCRI 25.5B and its Appendix I are chiefly intended to define PCC and/or LC practice (as the section titles note), so unless this is being cataloged as part of the PCC rubric, catalogers need not feel obligated to create a uniform title in a case such as this.

Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section

Last updated: October 20, 2006
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/sept06/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu