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 | Previous Section
Last updated: October 16, 2007
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/sept07/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu