For those who wish to nominate an OLAC colleague, please be sure that person is willing to serve. Nominations will also be accepted from the floor during the OLAC Membership meeting held at the 2008 ALA Midwinter meeting in Philadelphia.
For questions, please feel free to call Rebecca at (617) 253-7564.
OLAC’s Cataloging Policy Committee (CAPC) is seeking applicants for full member and/or intern positions with terms beginning after the ALA Annual Conference in June 2008. Members serve a two-year term; interns serve a one-year term. Qualifications for each are as follows: 3 years of current audiovisual cataloging experience or the equivalent; evidence of regular interaction with online cataloging systems or demonstrable knowledge of such systems. Most CAPC business is conducted during the ALA Midwinter and ALA Annual conferences. Candidates for appointment to CAPC positions must be willing to commit time and funds as necessary to attend these meetings.
If you are interested in applying for a CAPC position, please send a letter detailing your qualifications and your resume to Kelley McGrath by January 4, 2008. You can also send your application materials electronically to me at <kmcgrath@bsu.edu>. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Appointments will be made in Philadelphia at ALA Midwinter 2008.
, will also be hosted by OCLC. The new PURL software will also be updated to reflect the current understanding of Web architecture as defined by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). This new software will provide the ability permanently to identify networked information resources, such as Web documents, as well as non-networked resources such as people, organizations, concepts and scientific data. This capability will represent an important step forward in the adoption of a machine-processable "Web of data" enabled by the Semantic Web. OCLC and Zepheira provide PURLs as a core component of the Internet infrastructure, to increase the flexibility and stability of Web-based applications and services. More information on the PURL service is available on the OCLC PURL Website at <www.purl.org>.
Collections and Technical Services
Connexion Client 2.00 Released in June 2007
Enhancements include:
- Export Bibliographic Records in Dublin Core. Users may export bibliographic records in Dublin Core Qualified in XML with the UTF-8 character set.
- Windows Vista supported. The Connexion Client may be used under the Windows Vista operating system. Connexion Client 2.00 is supported with Windows 2000, XP, and Vista.
- New Toolbar Options and Revised Menu Layout. Users may specify whether or not to display the toolbar on one or two rows. They will be able to view shorter menu lists. Previously, some of the Connexion Client menus became quite long. With Client 2.00, some menu items have been regrouped into submenus to make the menu lists shorter.
- Z39.50 Access to Records Created in Institution's ILS. Users may access bibliographic records created in the local Integrated Library System.
- New OCLC-Supplied Macros. Besides the widely-used GenerateAuthorityRecord macro in the OCLC-supplied macro book OCLC.mbk, other new macros are included for specific functions.
- Institution Records. Bibliographic institution records (IRs) in WorldCat are the result of incorporating bibliographic "cluster" records from the RLG Union Catalog into WorldCat during the integration of RLG into OCLC. These records contain additional cataloging data, such as local call numbers, holdings locations within the institution, or local or copy-specific notes. WorldCat still supports the master record concept, but with this implementation, authorized libraries may create and maintain their own institution records linked to the master record. Many existing IRs contributed by migrating RLG libraries that request the process are being loaded into WorldCat as part of integrating the RLG Union Catalog. Institution records (IRs) are assigned OCLC numbers. The OCLC number of the master record to which the IR is linked is supplied by the system in the 079 field of the IR. All OCLC cataloging authorizations will be able to display IRs that are attached to master records. An indication of linked IRs for the user's institution as well as other libraries is shown on master records. Only authorized libraries will be able to create and maintain institution records. This functionality is available as an option to migrating RLG libraries, as well as to other libraries who order it via a custom quote subscription. All OCLC cataloging authorizations can export IRs or derive new master or constant data records from them.
Non-Latin script enhancements include:
- Automatically switch to English mode to enter delimiter and subfield code
- RLIN21 keyboards for Arabic, Cyrillic, Hebrew, and Latin
- Unicode Control Characters for Arabic and Hebrew script cataloging
OCLC does not expect to discontinue 1.7X until a future release of the Client is available. An upgrade to 2.00 is not required. However, OCLC recommends that users upgrade to version 2.00 so that they will have the most current features available.
WorldCat xISBN Service Enhances Search Results
The WorldCat xISBN service, the OCLC service that supplies International Standard Book Numbers associated with individual intellectual works represented in the WorldCat database, is now available for commercial and high-use applications. The WorldCat xISBN service, which began as an OCLC Research project, is a machine-to-machine service that supplies ISBNs and other information associated with an individual work in WorldCat, the world's richest database for discovery of items held in libraries. It has been a supported service, available at no charge for individual, non-commercial use, since February 2007 and is now also being made available for commercial and high-use applications (more than 500 requests per day) via subscription. The xISBN service helps a user find a resource when an ISBN assigned to any printing or edition of the work is known. Users submit an ISBN to the service to return a list of related ISBNs and selected metadata. ISBNs are related to each other using librarian-cataloged bibliographic records in WorldCat together with an algorithm that implements the FRBR model for information objects that brings together multiple versions of a work. The FRBR model keeps WorldCat users from having to browse numerous records that represent many different manifestations of a book--such as different printings, hardcover or paperback editions, audiobooks or film versions, for example--and brings them together under one record. The WorldCat xISBN service is ideal for Web-enabled search applications, such as library catalogs and online booksellers. Based on associations made in the WorldCat database, xISBN enables an end user to link to information about other versions of a source work. Among the uses of the WorldCat xISBN service: to identify a book from an online bookseller to determine if that book is available at the user's library; to confirm that no alternative versions of a work are available before a library sends an interlibrary loan request; to use a single search to check holdings of all editions of a work before making a selection for acquisition. More information about the WorldCat xISBN service is available on the OCLC WorldCat Website: <http://www.worldcat.org/affiliate/webservices/xisbn/app.jsp>.
Baker & Taylor Records Now Being Added to WorldCat
Baker & Taylor (B&T), the leading supplier of materials to public libraries, is now adding records to WorldCat. Baker & Taylor, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, provides books, music, DVDs, and video games and supports collection management and technical services to libraries around the world. The titles are being added as part of the agreement between Baker & Taylor and OCLC, to partner in providing bibliographic records and expanded technical services to schools and public libraries. B&T records loaded into WorldCat are from two sources: its own cataloging file (containing full and CIP cataloging MARC records from Library of Congress as well as full cataloging MARC records, produced by B&T's MLS Catalogers when there was no LC record) and Baker & Taylor's product file (containing brief non-MARC records used in B&T's Order Processing System). These records are converted to MARC by an OCLC mapping process. Both types of records are then matched against WorldCat records through a batch process. When a record is matched, BTCTA is added to Field 040, subfield $d. This indicates that Field 938 has been added to the matching record and contains Baker & Taylor product data (B&T unique identifier, i.e., book number). No other editing of records occurs as part of this process. When no matching record is identified through the batch process, OCLC adds the B&T record as a new record to WorldCat. This record contains the symbol BTCTA in Field 040, subfields $a and $c. Added product file records are very brief and are coded as abbreviated records (Encoding Level 3). They are not created by or examined by a cataloger. This provides customers using the new B&T/OCLC Cataloging Plus service access to the OCLC number early in the acquisitions workflow. OCLC encourages member libraries who acquire one of these titles to upgrade and replace the record and receive credit on their OCLC bill for upgrading that record. As B&T catalogers are performing cataloging services for customers, they will also be upgrading these records. This is an important and key feature of the B&T / OCLC agreement. In cases of both original records and matches, a 938 field is added to the MARC record that contains the vendor code BTCP. This code is indexed; vendor records are searchable using the vendor information keyword index.
Alliance Entertainment Becomes a WorldCat Cataloging Partner
OCLC welcomes Alliance Entertainment Corporation, a major supplier of music and visual resources, as a new WorldCat Cataloging Partner. With a combined total of more than 335,000 titles, Alliance maintains the largest in-stock catalog of CD titles and DVD titles in the United States, specializing in public and educational libraries. Trading partners include over 10,000 major record labels and movie studios. The Company was named the 2007 Large Wholesaler of the Year by the National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM). Alliance is a subsidiary of Source Interlink Companies, Inc., (NASDAQ: SORC) a leading marketing, merchandising and fulfillment company of home entertainment products which, in addition to music CDs and DVDs, also distributes magazines and books and provides a range of in-store services to retailers throughout North America. Alliance Entertainment's headquarters is located in Coral Springs, Florida and offers collection development assistance via standing orders, firm orders, and approval plans. Their highly trained staff has in-depth music & video knowledge serving to aid libraries with all of their selection needs.
Return to Table of Contents
MOUG LIAISON REPORT
Submitted to OLAC for ALA Annual 2007 in Washington, D.C.
By Mary Huismann
MOUG meetings are often held in conjunction with the MLA Annual Meetings even though MOUG is not formally affiliated with the Music Library Association. MOUG is particularly interested in reaching the non-music-specialist and the “occasional” music user of OCLC.
Contact Information
The MOUG Website <www.musicoclcusers.org> is undergoing some changes, which includes the addition of many back issues of the MOUG Newsletter. Applications for membership may be found on the Website.
Current officers include Neil Hughes, Chair (University of Georgia), Tracey Rudnick, Vice-Chair/Chair Elect (University of Connecticut), Deborah Morris, Treasurer (Roosevelt University), Kerri Scannell, Secretary/Newsletter Editor (University of Kentucky) and Bruce Evans, Continuing Education Coordinator (Baylor University).
2007 Annual Meeting Highlights
MOUG held its Annual Meeting on February 27-28, 2007 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Full reports from the Meeting are published in the June issue of the MOUG Newsletter (no. 95).
The opening plenary session featured a presentation on Open WorldCat/WorldCat.org given by Chip Nilges (Vice President for New Services, OCLC) and Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland). The next session was titled, “OCLC and Outsourced Cataloging Services”. Tim Savage (OCLC) outlined what services are available from OCLC, and Marty Jenkins (Wright State University) provided a look at how his library has utilized OCLC’s services. “Music Acquisitions Issues and OCLC” was a panel presentation by Bob Acker (DePaul University), Richard LeSueur (Ann Arbor Public Library District) and Anna Sylvester (OCLC). The traditional “Ask MOUG” session was led by OCLC’s Jay Weitz and Mela Kircher. OCLC Enhance participants and NACO Music Project also held their usual working sessions.
In other news from MOUG, the Executive Board awarded the MOUG Distinguished Service Award to Charles M. “Chuck” Herrold (Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh) for his tremendous contributions to the NACO-Music Project. Through September 2006 Herrold had single-handedly contributed over 21,000 new name authority records, and edited over 20,000 records. Chuck’s colleague David King performed a new version of his award-winning “Music Library Blues” in honor of Herrold.
2008 Annual Meeting
The 2008 Annual Meeting will be held in Newport, Rhode Island in conjunction with the Music Library Association Annual Meeting. The dates of the MLA Meeting are February 20-25, 2008. As arrangements for the meeting are currently being made, watch the MOUG Newsletter and Website for information and registration!
2008 Joint Meeting with OLAC
An additional meeting opportunity comes in September 2008, as MOUG joins OLAC for a joint meeting in Cleveland. Conference and program planning is underway, so stay tuned for updates!
Return to Table of Contents
OCLC MEMBERS COUNCIL
Kevin Furniss
The May 2007 meeting was called “Where Wonder Meets Wisdom: Aligning Values in a ‘Cooperative Commonwealth’”. The following report includes topics discussed at the various meetings that should be of interest to OLAC members.
Topic 1: “Future of Bibliographic Control” - Karen Calhoun
Karen Calhoun, OCLC’s new Vice President for Metadata Services, reviewed the challenges facing library catalogs and catalogers in our evolving world--users and their requirements for content continue to change; therefore, library service models, catalogs, and bibliographic control must also change. She provided examples of competitive information sources facing libraries and library catalogs, as well as the importance of digitization projects and linking users to full text rather than just to surrogates in the library catalog. She emphasized the importance of technical services in this transformation; that it is ultimately a very important “public” service. She concluded by saying that libraries are competing for the attention of information seekers, and if library catalogs and catalogers do not change, they risk being marginalized. The focus needs to change from methodologies to user needs.
Discussion and responses:
One person stressed the importance of name authorities in bringing together works of an author. Ms. Calhoun responded that catalogers need to find ways to apply controlled vocabularies in a less costly manner, using technology-assisted techniques.
Topic 2: “Next Generation Cataloging and Metadata Services” - Renee Register
Renee Register, OCLC Global Product Manager, Cataloging and Metadata Services provided information about OCLC’s developing Business Plan resulting from the merger of PromptCat and the Cataloging Partners Program. This plan outlines the following efforts:
- Developing partnerships and strategies to capture and enhance metadata at earlier stages in the publishing process
- Developing partnerships and strategies to allow WorldCat metadata to work across channels and formats
This will deliver benefits to both libraries and partners by:
- Building WorldCat at no cost to libraries
- Reducing metadata creation and management costs for libraries, publishers and jobbers
- Providing new revenue to support library needs and services
- Extending OCLC services and library expertise into new markets.
This plan will be presented to the OCLC Strategic Leadership Team on June 5 with a pilot commencing this summer and rollout in early 2008.
Discussion and responses:
- One person asked if this was similar to LC’s CIP program. Renee responded that LC is doing some work in this area but does not attempt to create records for every new title. Further, the scope of the CIP program excludes some material types and formats. She hopes this effort will provide more pre-publication data for library use. OCLC pre-publication data could include non-United States as well as United States titles.
- Another said that this is promising and exciting, but where does the new revenue come from? Renee indicated that because OCLC will be providing updated ONIX that publishers can use, they will be willing to pay for this.
- A reminder not to ignore K-12 schools and public; they need this type of information too.
Topic 3: “RLG Quality Control Update” - Glenn Patton
Glenn Patton, Director of WorldCat Quality Management, provided an update on OCLC quality control activities and statistics gathered by OCLC staff during the 2006-2007 fiscal year. Change requests increased 109%. Glenn also reviewed “distributed” quality control activities involving OCLC member libraries. These include minimal level upgrade, database enrichment, Enhance, and the BIBCO and CONSER cooperative programs. An Interest Group (IG) member provided examples of records that Mr. Patton and his staff had reviewed. The analysis showed that, of the 168 fields added in local editing, at least 41% could have been added to the WorldCat master record using existing capabilities. Mr. Patton concluded with the following considerations: OCLC should consider adding some additional fields to database enrichment; there should be more publicity for these capabilities; and made the point that the IG member’s library should apply for enhance.
Discussion:
IG members indicated that local workflows need to change the focus from local catalogs to WorldCat, so that WorldCat.org and WorldCat Local have the best possible records.
Topic 4: “Digital Collection Creation for Catalogers” - Judith Cobb
Judith Cobb, Product Manager, Museums and Archives, OCLC Digital Collection Services, reviewed the Content Cooperative Pilot Project, which will end June 30, 2007. Its goal was to explore the interest and value of allowing catalogers using the Connexion cataloging software to add a digital item that could be accessed directly from a WorldCat search. Twelve individual libraries and libraries from two group catalogs participated in the pilot, adding over 5400 digital items, including government documents, images and wide variety of other materials. These items averaged 1,200 hits per month. Ms. Cobb showed a few examples of the materials added during the pilot.
This approach proved to be one of several valuable options for the input of digital items into WorldCat. To follow up on this successful prototype experience, OCLC will be releasing new versions of the Connexion client and CONTENTdm this summer. The new release of the software, planned for September 2007, will allow Connexion users to upload digital items directly into the CONTENTdm digital repository. Ms. Cobb outlined features included in a hosted CONTENTdm license:
- Catalog and send content to CONTENTdm collections via Connexion client
- Access via CONTENTdm customized interface, WorldCat.org, and FirstSearch
- Full text search of “pdf” documents
- Zoom and pan
- OCR option
Topic 5: “More Hits on Your Primary Source Materials--Here’s How!” - Taylor Surface
Taylor Surface, Global Product Manager, OCLC Digital Collection Services, provided an update on WorldCat harvesting, which allows libraries to have the metadata from their CONTENTdm collections added to WorldCat, allowing these digital collections greater exposure. The process of WorldCat harvesting, which maps metadata to MARC format, is a value-added service that is provided free of charge. OCLC is improving the process in order to provide broader availability of digital collections. The steps include:
- Registration of collection for harvesting
- Analysis and conversion of data (DublinCore to MARC), similar to batchload analysis
- Addition of records to WorldCat
- The end result is access to both the metadata and the resource from WorldCat.org. Over 40,000 items are currently registered in WorldCat versus 5 million items in CONTENTdm
Mr. Surface outlined some common metadata sharing issues, including character set differences, differences in repeatability between Dublin Core and MARC, consistency of data, ambiguity, and context (e.g., DC tags vs. MARC codes). Currently the harvesting is automated, but the analysis is manual. OCLC plans to make conversion into a fully automated process, and is considering allowing libraries access to the analysis tools and conversion process to increase turn around time. The timetable for these enhancements is within the next 12 months.
Return to Table of Contents
PLANNING FOR THE 2008 OLAC/MOUG CONFERENCE
AN UPDATE
The 2008 joint OLAC-MOUG Conference will take place in Cleveland, Ohio from Friday, September 26 to Sunday, September 28, 2008. There will also be a Preconference on Thursday, September 25. The Conference will take place at the historic and elegant Renaissance Hotel <http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/clebr-renaissance-cleveland-hotel/>, adjacent to the Tower City shopping complex <http://www.towercitycenter.com/>. Attendees will have an opportunity to view the newly-remodeled Cleveland Museum of Art <http://www.clevelandart.org/> at Friday night’s reception. They will also be able to tour the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame <http://www.rockhall.com/>.
The Planning Committee is pleased to announce that the following people have so far accepted invitations to participate:
- Lynne Howarth (former Dean of the Faculty of Information Studies at the University of Toronto) will give the opening keynote speech.
- Janet Swan Hill (Associate Director for Technical Services, University of Colorado) will give the closing address.
- Paige Andrew (Pennsylvania State University Libraries) will give the map cataloging workshop.
- Jay Weitz (Senior Consulting Database Specialist, OCLC) will give the basic and advanced videorecording workshops.
The Planning Committee is developing the Conference theme, as well as the list of speakers and sessions. Suggestions for additional workshop topics and presenters are welcome. Please e-mail Kevin Furniss <furniss@denison.edu> or Sevim McCutcheon <Lmccutch@kent.edu>.
Attendees are encouraged to allow time to see some of Cleveland’s sites and attractions, described at the Convention and Visitors Bureau of Greater Cleveland’s Website <www.travelcleveland.com>. Many cultural institutions are concentrated in the University Circle area: the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Botanical Gardens, the Western Reserve Historical Society, the Museum of Natural History and Severance Hall, home of the Cleveland Orchestra. Attractions within easy driving distance include: a variety of ethnic neighborhoods, each with unique shops and eateries; the Football Hall of Fame and the First Ladies Library in Canton; Tudor-style Stan Hywet Hall in Akron; and Amish country.
Planning Committee members are:
- Suzette Burlingame (Stark County District Library) - Conference Treasurer
- Georgianne Doyle (Cuyahoga County Public Library)
- Julia Dunlap (Arkansas State University Library)
- Alice Essinger (Ohio Northern University)
- Bruce Evans (Baylor University) - MOUG Representative
- Kevin Furniss (Denison University) - Co-Chair
- Mary Huismann (University of Minnesota) - MOUG Representative
- Peter Lisius (Kent State University)
- Rebecca Lubas (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries)
- Sevim McCutcheon (Kent State University) - Co-Chair
- Sarajean Petite (Case Western Reserve University Law Library)
- Kathy Schnell (Cuyahoga County Public Library) - Conference Webmaster
- Barbara Strauss (Cleveland State University)
- Chris Thornton (Case Western Reserve University)
- Lori Thorrat (Ingalls Library, Cleveland Museum of Art)
- Jill Williams (University of Akron Law Library)
Return to Table of Contents
THE 2007 NANCY B. OLSON AWARD WINNER
On behalf of the 2007 OLAC Awards Committee, I am pleased to announce the winner of the 2007 Nancy B. Olson Award. The person honored this year was Mary Larsgaard, who has contributed so much to the map cataloging community over the years. We believe the text of the plaque says it so well:
To Mary Lynette Larsgaard
- For advocating the development and enhancement of cartographic cataloging standards through her many publications and guides;
- For giving catalogers an understanding and appreciation of cartographic resources through her teaching;
- For demystifying and increasing the cataloging of geospatial data;
- For leading national and regional map librarianship and cataloging organizations, including chair of ALCTS CC:DA and MAGERT liaison to the AACCCM;
- For championing and contributing to the creation, implementation, and ongoing management of the foremost geolibrary in the world, the Alexandria Digital Library;
- For her continuing leadership, advocacy, enthusiasm, energy, and mentorship in all areas cartographic.
On this date, Saturday, June 23, 2007,
Steven J. Miller, President
I would like to thank Kay Johnson and Kate James for volunteering to be on the Awards Committee and helping to fulfill our mission of honoring the greatest contributors in the field of special formats cataloging.
Congratulations, Mary!
The 2007 OLAC Awards Committee
Rebecca Lubas, Chair
Return to Table of Contents
CALL FOR NANCY B. OLSON AWARD NOMINATIONS
Greetings, OLAC Members!
I would like to invite nominations for this coming year’s award. The annual OLAC Award “recognizes and honors a librarian who has made significant contributions to the advancement and understanding of audiovisual cataloging”. Details on the Award and submission criteria, as well as a list of past recipients, can be found on the OLAC Award Web page: <http://www.olacinc.org/award.html>.
The Award recipient receives an engraved plaque containing an inscription recognizing his or her special contributions to the field.
The Nancy B. Olson Award is the highest honor for catalogers of audiovisual and electronic media. The award is named for the founder of OLAC, a woman who continues to be an inspiration and resource for AV catalogers.
Nomination(s) and statement(s) must be postmarked or timestamped no later than December 3, 2007. Paper and electronic submissions are welcome. Please send nominations to me (contact information below).
Steven J. Miller
Chair, Nancy B. Olson Award Committee
Immediate Past President, OLAC
Contact information:
Steven Miller
School of Information Studies
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
PO Box 413
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Phone: (414) 229-6640
FAX: (414) 229-6699
e-mail: <mll@uwm.edu>
Return to Table of Contents
NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
Barbara Vaughan, Column Editor
[The following two entries were adapted from messages recently sent to SACO members and are provided here for their connection to OLAC interests. Please see the CAPC Minutes in this issue for more information. --Editor]
GENRE/FORM AUTHORITY RECORDS
The Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) is working toward adding genre/form authority records (MARC 21, tag 155) to Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). The first issuance of these records is now being readied. "Weekly List 35" will include approximately 70 records for review at the CPSO weekly editorial meeting to be held on August 29, 2007. The authority records for the approved headings will subsequently be distributed by CDS to its customers beginning September 11, 2007. Several batches of these authority records are being readied for review on subsequent lists.
SACO members are strongly encouraged to review the announcement about this development <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/genre.html>, then look for "Weekly List 35" when it is posted.
Originally posted by:
John N. Mitchell, SACO Coordinator
Cooperative Cataloging Team
Library of Congress
<jmit@loc.gov>
WEEKLY LIST 35 NOW INCLUDES GENRE/FORM TERMS
Recently a notification was sent about the new genre/form terms being included on "Weekly List 35". That list is now posted at: <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/tentative/twls0735.html>. There are approximately 70 genre/form records for review on this list to be discussed at the CPSO weekly editorial meeting on August 29, 2007. SACO members are strongly encouraged to look at these particular genre/form terms.
The authority records for the approved headings will subsequently be distributed by CDS to its customers beginning September 11, 2007. Additional batches of these authority records are being readied for review on subsequent lists.
Important note: The SACO Program is not yet accepting new genre/form terms to be added as 155 headings at this time. An announcement will be made on the SACO-LIST for when SACO will begin accepting new 155 proposals.
For SACO members interested in submitting a genre/form term as a subject heading, the same mechanism remains in place. Submit the proposal as a topical subject heading tagged as a 150 and the CPSO policy specialists will review the contribution for consideration.
Originally posted by:
John N. Mitchell, SACO Coordinator
Cooperative Cataloging Team
Library of Congress
<jmit@loc.gov>
MOUG NMPAC CHANGE
The Music OCLC Users Group Executive Board recently reconfigured the NACO-Music Project Advisory Committee (NMPAC) as follows:
Non-voting:
- The NACO-Music Project (NMP) Coordinator.
- One Library of Congress Representative.
Voting:
- Two at-large members, chosen from among NMP participants, serving staggered 4-year terms, one of whom will serve as Chair.
- One MOUG Board Representative.
There are no longer separate OCLC and RLIN representatives, as a result of last year's merger. The new configuration provides oversight (from the NMP Coordinator, the Library of Congress, and the MOUG Board), and includes three voting members.
Ralph Papakhian (Indiana University) remains NMP Coordinator. Ralph is rightly known as the Father of the NMP and his leadership remains an inspiration for all those NMP participants who have built the project's reputations for high productivity, thoroughness, and accuracy.
I am pleased to announce that Ann Churukian (Vassar) has agreed to serve a four-year term as Chair of the NMPAC, taking over from Nancy Lorimer (Stanford) effective immediately--or as soon as Nancy and Ann have had a chat to talk over the transition and they are both comfortable with it.
Please also welcome the star of Pittsburgh stage, screen, MOUG business meeting, and--of course--the NACO-Music Project, Chuck Herrold (Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh), who has graciously accepted a two-year appointment in order to establish the required staggered rotation of the at-large members.
Also joining our all-star lineup will be Joe Bartl (Library of Congress) as our LC representative. The term of service for the LC rep. (as well as how change/transition will be effected with that position) is still under consideration.
Kerri Scannell, MOUG Secretary/Newsletter Editor extraordinaire, will be the MOUG Board representative through the next annual meeting in Newport, Rhode Island.
My thanks to Ann, Chuck, and Joe for agreeing to help launch the new & improved (or perhaps it is really just "post-RLIN"?) NACO-Music Project Advisory Committee. My thanks also to outgoing members Paul Cauthen (U. of Cincinnati) and last year's Board representative, Mark Scharff (Washington U. in St. Louis) for their expert and dedicated service--and in Paul's case, quite a few more months of it than he originally signed up for! Ditto to Nancy Lorimer, who served as both RLIN representative and chair, and whose thoughtful suggestions to the Board as we approached this reconfiguration with trepidation were invaluable.
For a description of the NACO-Music Project, see <http://www.musicoclcusers.org/nmpintro.html>
Thank you all for your attention to this important change.
Originally posted by:
Neil R. Hughes
Chair, Music OCLC Users Group
University of Georgia Libraries
<nhughes@uga.edu>
Return to Table of Contents
BOOK REVIEWS
Amy K. Weiss, Column Editor
Cataloging with AACR2 & MARC21:
For Books, Electronic Resources, Sound Recordings, Videorecordings, and Serials
by Deborah A. Fritz
This is the second edition, 2006 cumulation of Cataloging with AACR2 & MARC21. It is a handbook that would be very useful to the beginning cataloger or to the cataloger cataloging an unfamiliar type of material. Even experienced catalogers would find it useful.
The author, Deborah Fritz, owns a company called The MARC of Quality, which provides workshops on cataloging with AACR2 and MARC 21. This handbook grew out of the documentation she had written for the workshops she has been giving for more than eight years.
This is the first complete revision of this handbook since it was first published in 1998. Besides incorporating changes to AACR2, new LCRIs, and CONSER and MARC 21 updates, the chapters have been rewritten. It is a loose-leaf publication for which the author intends to provide update pages every one to two years--until RDA is released.
This handbook covers five common material types (monographs, serials, sound recordings, videos, and electronic resources). It does not include all the rules in AACR2 nor all the MARC tags. It does try to join cataloging standards and coding standards together in one reference handbook. Many other cataloging handbooks focus on just the cataloging rules. This handbook covers input standards for full level records according to the LC standards, full level records according to the OCLC standards, and minimal records according to the OCLC standards. It does not cover rules for assigning subject headings and call numbers.
The first chapter is an introduction. Chapter 2 discusses how to search for, choose, and edit records when copy cataloging; cloning records for different editions; and creating original catalog records. Chapter 3 is arranged in MARC tag order and gives quick instructions for each tag, AACR2 cataloging rules, rule interpretations and rules from other sources such as CONSER, hints from the author, which is something not found in most cataloging handbooks, specific rules for cataloging the different material types covered by this handbook, and tables of instructions for each subfield. There is a column in the table for each tag for the reader to record what his system's label is for that tag. The 006, 007, and 008 fields are also given in template form. The handbook also has examples of how different indicators for some tags would change a typical OPAC display.
The author includes Library of Congress cataloging policy for such things as recording dates of publication, and she also includes quotes from cataloging experts such as Richard Smiraglia (an expert on cataloging sound recordings), on topics such as the "p" date for recorded sound.
Chapters 4 through 8 give "cheat sheets" for each of the different types of material covered. Each of these chapters includes discussion on the chief source of information for that type of material, general cataloging steps, the pros and cons of using each field to search for copy cataloging records, quick match criteria for each field for choosing a record, a cheat sheet for editing/cloning/creating records, and a dates flowchart each type of material.
The chapter on electronic resources includes a list of specific cataloging tools for that format and a section on deciding whether the item being cataloged is a monographic electronic resource, a serial electronic resource, a monographic electronic resource with sound or video as the most significant aspect, etc. This chapter includes specific instructions on how to catalog each type of electronic resource. The chapters for sound recordings, videos, and serials also each include a list of cataloging tools specifically for that format. The chapter on videos also includes a video viewing notes worksheet. The chapter on serials has a section on how the cataloger can determine whether something is a monograph, a continuing resource, a serial, or an integrating resource.
This handbook includes appendices on initial articles, order and punctuation of title elements in the 245 field, end-of-field punctuation and a detailed index.
This handbook is sufficiently current to include the recent decisions by Library of Congress on when to add death dates to name authority records and on discontinuing production of series authority records. However, there is no mention of Catalogers Desktop or Class Web in the list of cataloging tools.
Cataloging with AACR2 & MARC21 would be very useful for anyone using MARC tagging to catalog any of the five types of material this handbook covers.
Published in 2006 by American Library Association, Chicago, Illinois. (various pagings) ISBN-13 978-0-8389-0935-5 ($68.; ALA member--$61.20)
Reviewed by:
Katherine Rankin
Bibliographic and Metadata Services Department
University Libraries
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Return to Table of Contents
OLAC CATALOGER'S JUDGMENT
Jay Weitz
Mixing DVD Apples and DVD-ROM Oranges
Question: A series from the Gnomon Workshop contains both DVDs and DVD-ROMs. For instance, volume 1 is a DVD, while volumes 2 and 3 are DVD-ROMs. In cataloging this as a set, should the GMD "kit" be given, or should it just be left out, since the GMD is optional? (This is a case when the use of "multimedia" in the United States would be so welcome.) Also, even though DVD-ROMs are the predominant format, treating the videodisc as accompanying material is not correct, because it is not accompanying--it is "Volume 1".
So, how about the following solution?
245 00 Imaginative illustration with J.P. Targete / $c [produced by] the Gnomon Workshop.
300 2 DVD-ROMs, 1 videodisc : $b sd., col. ; $c 4 3/4 in. + $e 3 folded inserts.
500 Vol. 1 issued as videodisc (DVD); vol. 2-3 issued as DVD-ROMs.
Alternatively, what about the following approach?
300 3 videodiscs : $b sd., col. ; $c 4 3/4 in. + $e 3 folded inserts.
500 Vol. 1 issued as videodisc (DVD); vol. 2-3 issued as DVD-ROMs.
It seems better not to use conventional terminology in the 300 field in this situation, since it is not clear how that would be handled.
Answer: Strictly speaking a DVD-ROM is not a "videodisc" by AACR2 standards, so calling a video DVD and two DVD-ROMs all "videodiscs" is not justified. My inclination would be to go with the first suggestion of "2 DVD-ROMs, 1 videodisc" (or "1 videodisc, 2 DVD-ROMs", given that Volume 1 is the DVD), with the fuller explanation in the 500 field. If the separate discs have individual titles, they could be listed in a 505 note, with the specific descriptions put there, in parentheses:
505 0 v. 1. Title of volume 1 (DVD) -- v. 2. Title of volume 2 (DVD-ROM) -- v. 3. Title of volume 3 (DVD-ROM).
Question: Some recorded DVDs are labeled as "MPEG-1", which seems to be a slightly lower quality compression standard than usually used on VCDs, since most DVDs use MPEG-2. Should this information be recorded in the 538? It would seem that if the publisher thought that it was significant enough to put it on the label, then it should be put in the 538. However, it does not seem to require different playback equipment than MPEG-2 and there is the concern that putting it in the record will cause more confusion than enlightenment for the user.
Answer: Whether this information is included may depend upon the needs of the expected users. It does appear that the compression standard does not change the playback equipment used. But the MPEG-1 standard does imply a lower level of video (and possibly audio) quality, and that might be important in the context of certain catalogs. To help minimize any confusion that might result from including this bit of information, it might be spelled out more explicitly in the 538 field, saying, for instance, "MPEG-1 compression standard", "MPEG-1 encoding", or whatever else may be appropriate, using a direct quote if possible.
Question: Do you have any suggestions for special cataloging treatment for HD <http://www.dvdforum.org/hddvd-tech.htm> and Blu-ray
<http://www.blu-ray.com/info/> CDs? It would seem appropriate to mention this detail in the 500 physical description note and Field 007, subfield $d should also probably be coded "u" instead of "f". Are there any other things that might be added to the record?
Answer: Using what we find in LC's recent "New Sound Recording Formats" document as hints to preferred practice, here are my suggestions, all of them subject to revision later, as we learn and discuss more. Use Field 500 to state the name of the particular format (e.g., "Blu-ray Disc", "HD DVD", or whatever is appropriate). If any additional system requirements are spelled out on the resource, they should be formulated into a 538 "System requirements" note or a 500 quoted note, depending upon what makes sense in the situation. The 300 field would not change for either audio or video versions of either format. For the sound recording version of either disc format, coding the REC 007, subfield $d (007/03) as "z" conforms with LC's recommendation for treating DVD-Audio; the remaining codes would be standard. For the videorecording versions, only the VIS 007, subfield $e (007/04) would differ from the standard; it still seems safe to code it "v" for HD DVD, but I think I would code it "z" for Blu-ray Discs. Nothing else really screams out for change, as far as I can tell.
Multiple File Formats and 007 Subfield $h
Question: In coding the Electronic Resource 007, it just does not seem right to code for multiple formats when 99.9% of the material is in one format and there is only one little "txt" file that gives some very basic information, such as acknowledgements. Even so, catalogers are supposed to code for multiple formats, correct? This certainly does seem to give too much weight to one insignificant file.
Answer: Presumably, you are referring to the Electronic Resource 007, subfield $h (007/09) for "File formats". First, note that the positions 007/06-13 (subfields $g through $l) are all optional and are generally used only in cases where the electronic resource in question has been created, converted, or reformatted. Strictly speaking, in cases where using subfield $h is appropriate, it could be said that the presence of even a single file of a different format would call for coding "m" for multiple file formats. In practical terms, however, if the single different file is as insignificant as the type described, it can probably be ignored when coding subfield $h.
Question: For a DVD that contains both PAL & NTSC discs, I entered the 538 as “PAL (1 disc) & NTSC (1 disc)”. Does this need to be clarified further in a separate note? The detail statement on the container reads: “DVD9, PAL, NTSC, Format 16/9, Son 4.0”. I omitted the “9” after “DVD” in the 538. Also, it is unclear what “Son 4.0” is. The duration on the container states 2 hours, 50 minutes (2H50), but the concert is really only 1 hour, 37 minutes and 16 seconds. There is one bonus feature that is 53 minutes and a short animated bonus feature that is 5 minutes and 15 seconds. None of this adds up to the time on the container. While the duration should be given as stated on the item, the duration on the container is incorrect and does not reflect the true concert length. So it would seem better to have the 300 field reflect the true length of 97 minutes, 16 seconds, but also make a note about the duration statement on the container. Does this seem correct? Finally, dates found on the item are “c2005” and “p2006”. The item is a film of a live concert from 2005. Should the “p2006” be changed to “c2006” in the 260 subfield $c?
Answer: Noting in the 538 field that there are both NTSC and PAL discs makes sense, and it probably does not need further clarification. "DVD-9" is a single-sided, dual-layer DVD disc (see Section 3.3 of the "DVD Demystified" FAQ site at . "Format 16/9" probably refers to the widescreen ratio more often expressed as "16:9" or 1.78:1. Concerning "Son 4.0", my best guess is that this refers to four channel surround sound, "son" being the French word for "sound". Regarding the duration, it would be correct to put the duration of the main content (the concert, in this case) in the 300 field. And it would be prudent to include a note explaining that the duration stated on the container is inaccurate. The durations of any of the extra material can be included as part of a contents or other note, if appropriate. As to the dates, if the publisher has presented the information correctly, the "p2006" is a "phonogram copyright" date for the recorded sound. It is not clear from the question where the various dates appeared. If the "p2006" was found on the disc itself (either in the film credits or on the label), I would consider that to be the date of publication, so drop the "p", and simply put "2006" in the 260 subfield $c. If the "p2006" is from the container, I would use "[2006]" in the 260 subfield $c. Depending upon the situation, the different dates and where they appear could be noted, if you think there might be confusion otherwise.
Local Reproduction of VHS onto DVD-R
Question: Regarding the tag 006 for a VHS transfer to a DVD-R, are catalogers required to use Field 006? If so, should the Fixed Field be coded for a videorecording (Type "g", TMat "v") or for an electronic resource (Type "m"). In either case, which corresponding 006 Field should be used? Or should only Field 007 be used?
Answer: This sort of locally reproduced videorecording would be treated much the same as any other locally reproduced videorecording, as outlined in OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards Section 3.7 . A DVD-R is still regarded as a videorecording, so the Type of Record Code (Leader/06) would be "g", the Type of Material Code (VIS 008/33) "v", the GMD "[videorecording]". No 006 field would be needed. Code the videorecording 007 field for the reproduction, pretty much the same as any other DVD would be coded. Describe the DVD reproduction in Field 300. Because this is a reproduction of one video format (VHS) to another video format (DVD), DtSt (008/06) would be coded "r", with the date of the reproduction as Date 1 and the date of the original as Date 2.
Question: Catalogers at our institution have been coming across more DVDs that were originally released in 2003 (or sometime before the end of 2005) and are now being re-released as copy-protected discs. When comparing the two containers, it is obvious that one is copy-protected and other is not. This is made clear with an icon and the statement, "This DVD is copy-protected". If all other elements of the disc (languages, captions, special features, etc.) are identical and this is the only difference, should a new record be created or would the old record just be adapted? If the old record is used, should the cataloger note the addition of copy protection? For the newer DVD titles that had not previously been released without copy protection, should catalogers still indicate the copy-protected information; if so, where would be the best place to add it?
Answer: If nothing else has changed--most especially the date of publication--it would probably be best to use an existing record. In doing so, it would be a good idea to add a note to the effect that there are both copy-protected and non-copy-protected versions (then editing locally for the one the institution holds, of course). If the date of publication has changed, separate records would be justified, and it would still be prudent to quote the copy-protection statement and to note that a non-copy-protected version is also available. Even if there had not been a previous non-protected version, a note about copy protection seems appropriate. I would suggest that Field 540 would be the place for that.
Qualifying Uniform Titles for TV Movies
Question: What is the proper parenthetical qualifier for a uniform title for a television movie?
Answer: Here is what LCRI 25.5B Appendix I says (identically in both the section devoted to motion pictures and the section devoted to television programs: "If a resource has been distributed theatrically, non-theatrically, as a home video, and/or aired on television, use the qualifier applicable to the original distribution. When the original distribution is unknown, cannot be determined, or is not applicable (e.g., undistributed home movies), use the qualifier '(Motion picture)'. Use the qualifier '(Motion picture)' when the original distribution is directly to the home video market. Use the qualifier '(Television program)' for those resources originally aired on television whether or not they have subsequent home video releases". So, a made-for-TV movie would be qualified by "(Television program)".
The Saga of Country Codes for Videorecordings
Question: I have it fixed in my head that the Country Code for videorecordings should be the country of original production--or the first one listed--not the country of later distribution. So when cataloging non-English language films, I use the country code for the place where the film was first produced, not the state that the United States distributor calls home. Yet more often than not, records can still be found in OCLC that use a country code for the American distributor. It recently occurred to me that maybe catalogers are using this code because of the subtitles or other features that are new in the later version. Have I been using the wrong country codes?
Answer: The question of coding the 008/15-17 (Place of Publication, Production, or Execution; "Ctry" in the OCLC Fixed Field) for videorecordings is one of long standing and of much controversy. It has been addressed several times in the past on the OLAC List. It is also one that I have been trying, without notable success, to straighten out for years. My most concerted effort was in October 2003 when I sent a clarifying proposal to LC's Cataloging Policy and Support Office. CPSO never responded and MARC 21 remains unchanged through the recently released Update No. 7. The following several paragraphs are excerpts from my message to CPSO. The most important sentence is the final one of the first paragraph.
"A series of exchanges on the Online Audiovisual Catalogers discussion list (OLAC-L) in October 2003 has raised again the longstanding ambiguity built into the description of field 008/15-17 (Place of Publication, Production, or Execution) for visual materials. This is an attempt to remove that ambiguity and so to bring Visual Materials into line with most other types of resources in the coding of place of publication. Most commercially available videorecordings should be coded for the country of publication for the video, corresponding to the 260 subfield $a."
"The story about country codes for moving images is a long one that goes back to the origins of the MARC Films format. This was, remember, back in the days when the films in question were actual feature films in the form of reels, most of which were available in limited quantities (usually to theatres, archives, and the like), plus more readily available instructional films. It was also back in the days before both the MARC format and the cataloging rules tried, as much as possible, to treat different kinds of materials similarly. The subsequent widespread commercial availability of various forms of video did prompt MARC 21 to be updated somewhat on the country of publication point. That updating did not go far enough, however, in bringing Visual Materials into conformity with most other types of materials. Enough of the old text remained to leave doubt in the minds of many about how to code for Country."
"Currently, MARC 21 says basically that for 'original or historical' Visual Materials, Country Code should be based on any geographic information that may be deduced from the visuals. Later on it says, in part: 'For visual materials and music, if the work is a multi-country production, the code for the first country is recorded in 008/15-17'. That is really all it says that is specifically applicable to Visual Materials. This leaves a strong ambiguity about different treatment of Visual Materials generally, where the Country Code does not necessarily correspond to the place of publication in field 260, subfield $a."
"Historically, however, MARC left no ambiguity about this. If we go back to the old USMARC (pages dated January 1988), both of the texts about 'original or historical' visual materials and about 'multi-country production' are the same. What it used to say in addition, though, was this: 'For visual materials that are not historical graphics or naturally occurring objects, the code is given for the country of production, that is, the country of the producing agency or individual, not for the distributor named in the imprint'. This sheds light on the source of the remaining ambiguity in the current MARC 21 text, especially that concerning the 'multi-country production'. The intention behind the removal of this quoted text was to bring the treatment of Visual Materials into line with other materials; that is, to code the Country fixed field according to the place of publication found in field 260 subfield $a. But the current MARC 21 text doesn't completely accomplish this."
At this point in my message to CPSO, I made a few specific proposals for rewording and, I hope, clarifying the coding of "Country" (008/15-17) for visual materials and that element's relationship to Field 044. Obviously, I cannot dictate such a change by fiat, but I think catalogers are best served by such a clarification, and I have been advocating this use of the Country Code in my videorecording cataloging workshops for years. My suggestion is that even visual materials catalogers should confidently follow the first paragraph of the 008/15-17 description that reads, in part, "Choice of a MARC code is generally related to information in Field 260", without suspecting that "generally" is meant to exclude visual materials.
Cataloging from Credits or Container?
Question: Is it okay to catalog a DVD/VHS without actually looking at it? Records so often show "Title from container" even when there is a perfectly good (and sometimes different) title at the start of the movie. Is this just the way that it has always been, or did I read the wrong book on cataloging AV/sound recordings?
Answer: Ideally, a cataloger would use title frames and credits to catalog any video, but that is not always possible. Some catalogers do not have access to the specific technology to view each type of video. Others may be prohibited from such viewing by workflow quirks or institutional rules, such as time restraints. Still others (such as many of the OCLC Contract Cataloging staff) may be working from pre-publication data or container images supplied by the publisher, rather than having the video itself in hand. When working under such restraints--and with the knowledge that other catalogers may be able to upgrade your record with additional or better information--it may be a good idea to input a record at level K. Section 5.4 of OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards includes a chart outlining what can be added and changed under Database Enrichment (along with any corresponding credits) <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/quality/default.shtm#databaseenrichment>. There is also some information about the Minimal-Level Upgrade in Section 5.2
<http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/quality/default.shtm#CIAFAHJB>.
Return to Table of Contents
Last updated: October 27, 2007
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/sept07.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu