Return to Table of Contents

1. Call to Order, Introduction of Officers, Announcements

   The Business meeting was called to order by OLAC President Karen Driessen at 8:04 p.m. Officers present: Mary Konkel (Vice- President/President-Elect), Johanne LaGrange (Treasurer), Heidi Hutchinson (Secretary), Sue Neumeister (Newsletter Editor), Sheila Smyth (Past President), and Richard Harwood (CAPC Chair)

   K. Driessen thanked the Board members for working with her this past year, then asked first-time OLAC Business meeting attendees to stand and introduce themselves.

2. Secretary's Report (H. Hutchinson)

   The minutes of the Business meeting of February 5, 1994 (ALA Midwinter meeting, Los Angeles) were approved as published in the March 1994 OLAC Newsletter.

3. President's Report (K. Driessen)

   K. Driessen announced the newly elected officers for 1994/95: Heidi Hutchinson, Vice-President/President-Elect and Catherine Gerhart, Secretary.

4. Vice-President's Report on OCLC Users Council (M. Konkel)

   Please see separately submitted report [p. 27-29] in this issue.

5. Treasurer's Report (J. LaGrange)

   The first quarter 1994 report was published in the June issue of OLAC Newsletter. J. LaGrange updated the member numbers. As of June, OLAC has 632 members, of which 344 are personal and 288 are institutional.

6. Newsletter Editor's Report (S. Neumeister)

   There have been 2 issues since the Midwinter meeting. The June issue of the OLAC Newsletter was mailed on June 5th. S. Neumeister announced that she had extra copies of the latest issue, should people wish to pick one up after the meeting. Neumeister welcomed Vicki Toy Smith as the new Book Review Editor. Deadline for the next issue is August 1.

7. Membership Directory Report (H. Hutchinson)

   A committee was formed at the Midwinter OLAC Board meeting to work on the Directory. That committee will meet Sunday night prior to the Board meeting to finalize the form and schedule for producing the Directory. A follow-up mailing is planned so that members can correct any errors or update their entries; also, new member information from the Treasurer will be included.

8. Publication Update (S. Smyth)

   A Library Manager's Guide to the Physical Processing of Nonprint Materials by K. Driessen and S. Smyth is being published by Greenwood Press later this year and will sell for $60 a copy. Verna Urbanski's book Cataloging Unpublished Nonprint Materials (Lake Crystal, MN: Soldier Creek Press, 1992) sold 306 copies in 1993 and 54 so far in 1994. OLAC expects to receive royalty payments from these sales, according to OLAC Treasurer J. LaGrange.

9. Committee Reports
   1. Cataloging Policy Committee (CAPC) (R. Harwood)

      Please see separately submitted minutes of the CAPC meeting [p. 9-13] in this issue.

   2. 1994 OLAC/MOUG Conference Planning Committee (Hal Temple)

      The 1994 OLAC/MOUG Conference will be held at the Chicago Marriott Oak Brook October 5-8. H. Temple announced the speakers, the workshops and their leaders, as well as the tours and concert. Conference details and the registration form were published in the June 1994 issue of the OLAC Newsletter.

10. Liaison/Observer Reports
    1. ALCTS AV (Anne Campbell Moore)

       Please see separately submitted report [p. 33-34] in this issue.

    2. AMIA Liaison (Martha Yee)

       AMIA (Association of Moving Image Archivists) meets annually, and their next meeting is in November in Boston. Main item of business is to ask the Library of Congress to consider a revision of the cataloging rules in Archival Moving Image Materials.

    3. CC:DA (John Attig)

       Please see separately submitted report [p. 32] in this issue.

    4. MARBI (John Attig)

       Please see separately submitted report [p. 29-32] in this issue.

    5. MOUG (Ann Caldwell)

       MOUG met in March for one day prior to the MLA Conference in Kansas City, Missouri. A report from this meeting was published in the June 1994 OLAC Newsletter. MOUG has published the 5th edition of The Best of MOUG (music uniform titles). [Order info. is on p. 2]

11. Library of Congress and Utility Reports
    1. Library of Congress (Harriet Harrison)

       Norma Hendrickson was appointed Head of the LC Computer Files Cataloging Team. In the Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO), the Coordinator for Computer Files Cataloging Policy is Pat Bernard. CPSO music representative is Gerry Ostrove. The AV Section fell victim to the LC push for arrearage control. Part of the staff transferred to Motion Picture, Broadcast and Recorded Sound Division, where they catalog in the moving images, music, and sound recordings sections of MBRS.

       H. Harrison repeated the invitation (first relayed to CAPC Friday night) for OLAC to appoint a non-voting representative to Cooperative Cataloging Council (CCC) as the AV materials core record is developed. The contact person at LC is David Reser.

       Harrison will be responsible for future rule interpretations for Chapter 7, and said she would be relying on OLAC to supply her with recommendations.

    2. OCLC (Glenn Patton)

       Please see separately submitted report [p. 40-41] in this issue.

    3. RLG (Ed Glazier)

       Please see separately submitted report [p. 38-40] in this issue.

12. New Business

    K. Driessen announced that, even with a biennial conference coming up this October, it is necessary to start the planning for the following OLAC Conference (1996). By Midwinter a site should be picked and conference chairs chosen. Driessen asked OLAC members to consider volunteering their region and asked interested members to contact M. Konkel or H. Hutchinson.

13. Adjournment

    The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. and followed by the traditional question and answer session.

Return to Table of Contents

1. Call to Order, Introductions, Announcements (K. Driessen)

   The Board meeting was called to order by OLAC President Karen Driessen at 8:08 p.m.

   Members present: Mary Konkel (Vice-President/President-Elect), Richard Harwood (CAPC Chair), Heidi Hutchinson (Secretary), Sue Neumeister (Newsletter Editor), Sheila Smyth (Past President), and Johanne LaGrange (Treasurer)

   Guests: Ellen Hines and Hal Temple (1994 Conference Chairs), Laura Snyder (MOUG Past Chair), Pat Thompson, Virginia Berringer

   K. Driessen announced the 1994/95 Board changes: following this meeting, M. Konkel will be President, H. Hutchinson Vice-President/ President-Elect, and Catherine Gerhart will take over as Secretary.

2. Approval of the Minutes (H. Hutchinson)

   The OLAC Board meeting minutes of February 6, 1994 were approved as printed in OLAC Newsletter 14 (1) (March 1994).

3. Treasurer's Report (J. LaGrange)

   The formal Treasurer's Report for this quarter was published in the June 1994 OLAC Newsletter. J. LaGrange noted there were some difficulties receiving reports on the royalties from Verna Urbanski's book. M. Konkel and J. LaGrange may pursue this in a letter to the publisher. (ACTION)

   The OLAC CD expires in July 1994. J. LaGrange proposed that OLAC use only the interest as a future scholarship fund and reinvest the principle of $10,000. It was generally agreed that the scholarship should be to support a librarian's attendance at an OLAC Conference and that a committee should be formed to draw up the guidelines for award of the scholarship. See further discussion under point 9 below.

4. Newsletter Report (S. Neumeister)

   The deadline for the next Newsletter is August 1.

5. Report on 1994 Conference (E. Hines, H. Temple, L. Snyder)

   H. Temple distributed two separate options for a conference schedule. Option 1 was chosen with minor changes. There was extensive discussion about timing of workshops and meals.

   E. Hines mentioned that some nationwide publicity for the OLAC/MOUG Conference had already gone out (especially on listservs) and that some queries had already been received from non-OLAC/MOUG members.

   The guidelines on stipends for conference speakers were reviewed in light of the OLAC/MOUG Conference.

   The Board thanked the Conference Planning Committee Chairs for all of their hard work.

6. OLAC Award Update (S. Smyth)

   S. Smyth announced that the only nomination received this year was past the deadline, so no OLAC Award was given. The deadline was December 1 and the initial advertisement was printed in the September Newsletter, giving members plenty of time to make nominations. K. Driessen will be chairing the next OLAC Award Committee.

7. Membership Directory (H. Hutchinson, J. LaGrange)

   The Membership Directory Committee (Hutchinson, LaGrange, S. Neumeister, and B. McCafferty) met prior to the Board meeting and agreed on a calendar for the production of the Membership Directory, which should be ready to distribute to members at the OLAC/MOUG Conference in October. Members who do not attend the conference will receive their directories by mail; non-members may purchase a copy at the conference. The number of copies printed will be based on OLAC's highest personal membership number plus 100. The size will be 8.5 x 11, for the optimal use of space and number of columns per page.

   The Committee decided that the Directory would be more accurate if each member were to proof his or her entry and send it back to the Committee. This tearsheet would also include a controlled vocabulary list for cataloging specialties that the member would be asked to check off. The Board agreed to this proposal.

   Because of past experience with bulk mailings, the Board approved the funds to send the tearsheets to members by first class mail.

8. OLAC Handbook Updates (H. Hutchinson, M. Konkel)

   Due to the many changes currently being made to the Handbook, new pages will not be distributed until after this meeting.

   H. Hutchinson had mailed the latest version of the archives proposal to all board members; several changes made to it during the meeting will be incorporated to the final form. (ACTION)

   M. Konkel distributed copies of the draft proposal for the "Service in More Than One Capacity" section, to be added to the Handbook following the section on "Liaisons." S. Smyth and M. Konkel will work out the final wording and submit to H. Hutchinson for inclusion in the Handbook. (ACTION)

9. OLAC Certificate of Deposit

   R. Harwood proposed that money from OLAC's CD or its interest might be used to support research grants for OLAC members. Following discussion, Harwood volunteered to draw up a set of criteria for research grant awards to present to the Board at Oak Brook. (ACTION)

   Following up on discussion from Agenda Point 3, an ad hoc committee was charged with drawing up application guidelines for an OLAC scholarship to support a member's attendance at an OLAC Conference. The committee members are V. Berringer, P. Thompson, and J. LaGrange. Bobby Ferguson, who first mentioned this idea to the Board, will be asked if she is interested in chairing the committee. (ACTION)

10. Rationale for Cataloging Nonprint Collections

    It was decided to publish the text of the "Rationale" in brochure form. R. Harwood and K. Driessen will finalize the text; S. Neumeister will be responsible for creating an attractive brochure for distribution at the OLAC Conference. The finalized text of the "Rationale" will also be printed in the OLAC Newsletter. (ACTION) [See p. 5 of this issue. -- ed.]

11. OLAC 15th Birthday Party

    OLAC's 15th anniversary will take place in the summer 1995. Former OLAC Presidents and OLAC Award recipients will receive formal invitations and will be asked to submit short biographical statements. A birthday cake and punch will be served following the Business meeting. K. Driessen and M. Konkel are in charge of the arrangements. Konkel will introduce the honored guests. Konkel will request a meeting room in a hotel rather than the conference center for this occasion. (ACTION)

12. OLAC Ballot Difficulties

    Bo-Gay Tong Salvador was in charge of the election and reported that many members received their ballots after the voting deadline of April 30, even though they were mailed in the first week of April. Her recommendation was to send the ballot first class in the future instead of by bulk mail, and that a statement regarding the return date (received by, rather than postmarked by) be added to the Handbook. These recommendations were accepted by the Board. There was also concern that OLAC has no written procedure for deciding the winner in case of a tie. H. Hutchinson and M. Konkel will work on a proposal for both Handbook and Bylaws, to be presented to the Board at Oak Brook. The Handbook section currently mentioning the ballot is under Calendar for March (section D). Hutchinson gave Konkel a sample packet containing election material from the Librarians Association of the University of California to use as a model. (ACTION)

    It was also suggested that in addition to the candidates' statements included in the March Newsletter, they should also be included with the ballot, so that voters do not need to rely on the Newsletter for the statements.

    Preservation of anonymity was also a concern. The ballots will be redesigned so that the mailing label will not be returned with the marked ballot.

13. Policy Clarifications
    1. OCLC Users Council

       M. Konkel had written up a proposal regarding the OLAC representative to OCLC Users Council. This past year, it has been convenient and close enough for Konkel to attend all three meetings, but this was an exception. K. Driessen pointed out that there is a brief note on OLAC's relationship to OCLC in the Handbook section on LC and Bibliographic Utility Representatives stating "In 1986 OCLC designated OLAC as OCLC's AV user group. OCLC has also designated OLAC as its computer files user group." Driessen asked for feedback from the Board on the options listed in Konkel's proposal. Konkel will do some more research and draft language for the Handbook and submit it to the Board at the next meeting. (ACTION)

    2. OLAC Endorsements for Positions

       To a request for OLAC endorsement of a library applying for enhance status with OCLC, K. Driessen replied that this is not within OLAC's purview. Individual catalogers may advertise their OLAC membership in such a case, if they feel it would be advantageous. It was decided that this issue does not warrant special mention in the Handbook.

    3. Vendors at OLAC Conferences

       Vendors have occasionally asked for representation at OLAC conferences, but because of the logistics (i.e. very little display space, little time between workshops to visit vendors), a formal setup is not possible. However, various forms of financial support for the conferences is gladly accepted and distribution of literature at tables is encouraged. The Board will defer to the conference chairs of the individual conferences to make decisions regarding vendors. Vendors may be solicited by the conference chairs for handouts and financial contributions.

    4. Ex Officio Members of CAPC

       The Board discussed a question raised by OLAC's former CC:DA audience observer on that position's relationship to CAPC. It was decided to make both the CC:DA audience observer and the MARBI liaison ex officio members of CAPC. The possibility of a stipend for the CC:DA audience observer (matching that of the OLAC MARBI representative) was also discussed.

       The following motion was made and passed unanimously regarding stipends for MARBI liaison and CC:DA audience observer: "The MARBI liaison and CC:DA audience observer will be named ex officio members of CAPC and should receive a stipend set at $100 for each ALA Conference attended." The wording will appear in the appropriate Handbook sections. (ACTION)

    5. CC:DA Relationship

       K. Driessen elaborated on her recent unsuccessful attempt to establish a formal liaison relationship between OLAC and CC:DA. There is some hope that the Committee's documentation will be made available online, so that all interested, including the OLAC CC:DA audience observer, can be informed on the issues.

14. Committee Appointments

    S. Smyth and S. Neumeister will be on the Elections Committee. The Awards Committee will include K. Driessen, H. Hutchinson and one non-Board member, to be named. (ACTION)

15. New Business
    1. V. Berringer suggested that an organized, indexed compilation of OLAC's Q&A column through the years in book form would be a worthwhile project for someone. The Board agreed that it was worth investigating. Verna Urbanski would need to be consulted, since she is the Q&A column author. It was suggested that Soldier Creek Press would be a good publisher for such a volume. R. Harwood suggested that a full-text searchable form on a Gopher would be useful.

    2. K. Driessen proposed adding a new duty for the OLAC Vice-President: The present Handbook text lists responsibility for OLAC program sponsorship and coordination at an ALA Conference. Co-sponsorship is no longer an option for OLAC as in the past. M. Konkel agreed to find out whether sponsoring a program of OLAC's own is still an option. (ACTION) Otherwise, that Handbook section will be changed. However, it would make sense to place the planning of an OLAC Bien- nial Conference (since the time span currently covers three different administrations) in the hands of the Vice-President, to assure continuity throughout the planning process. A motion was made and passed unanimously that the OLAC Vice-President have, and carry through his/her presidency, responsibility for being the Board contact person for the OLAC Conference Planning Committee from the Committee's appointment to the end of the planning process. It was noted that this would fall to alternating Vice-Presidents. A change will be made in the Handbook wording under Vice-President/President-Elect. (ACTION)

Respectfully submitted,

Return to Table of Contents

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT:
KAREN DRIESSEN
Instructional Media Services
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812
406-243-2856
406-243-4067 (Fax)
IMS_KCD@LEWIS.UMT.EDU

TREASURER:
JOHANNE LAGRANGE
Health Sciences Library
Columbia University
701 West 168th Street
New York, NY 10032
212-305-1406
212-234-0595(Fax)
GERHART@U.WASHINGTON.EDU

CAPC CHAIR:
RICHARD HARWOOD
University of Tennessee
326 Hodges Library
1015 Volunteer Blvd.
Knoxville, TN 37996-1000
615-974-6696
615-974-0551(Fax)
HARWOOD@UTKLIB.LIB.UTK.EDU

NEWSLETTER EDITOR:
SUSAN M. NEUMEISTER
State University of New York at Buffalo
Central Technical Services
Lockwood Library Bldg.
Buffalo, NY 14260-2200
716-645-2305
716-645-5955 (Fax)
NEUMEIST@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

OLAC LIAISON TO ALCTS AV, 1993-1995
(Association for Library Collections & Technical Services
Audio Visual Committee)
ANNE CAMPBELL MOORE
O'Neill Library
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA 02167
MOOREA@BCVMS.BC.EDU

OLAC LIAISON TO AMIA, 1993-1995
(Association of Moving Image Archivists)
MARTHA YEE
UCLA Film and Television Archive
1015 N. Cahuenga
Hollywood, CA 90038
EFS4CMB@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU

OLAC/CC:DA AUDIENCE OBSERVER, 1993-1995
(Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access)
To be announced.

OLAC LIAISON TO MARBI, 1993-1995
(Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee)
JOHN ATTIG
Authority Control Librarian
University Libraries
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
JCA@PSULIAS.PSU.EDU

OLAC LIAISON TO MOUG, 1993-1995
(Music OCLC Users Group)
ANN CALDWELL
Rockerfeller Library
Brown University
Box A
Cataloging Dept.
Providence, R.I. 02912
AP201077@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU

Return to Table of Contents

Some speakers were very blunt about this matter. We, in the academic or public library setting, have no control over heating/ventilating/air conditioning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Fans/air conditioning systems are shut down in many institutions on evenings, weekends, and vacation periods to "save energy." Never mind studies showing it is more efficient to run such systems continuously; to the tax-paying public, it sounds better to be able to announce you are shutting things down to save energy/tax dollars. Unless you have absolute control over such systems, with backup systems in place, your film/video collections will deteriorate. This deterioration is speeded up by high temperatures and high humidity, and proceeds more rapidly than might be anticipated. While the institute did not address the problems of preserving computer files, the same conditions apply.

All magnetic media are composed of layers of materials, a base layer, a binder, and particles carrying information. The base may shrink, expand, and/or become brittle and break. The binder may deteriorate and separate from the base. The particles may lose their magnetic charge (the encoded information) and may separate from the binder and/or base. Many of us have picked videos off the shelf, and found our hands dirty from tiny black particles sifting out of the case. These particles once held the information that created the video image -- that image has deteriorated.

We've all heard that we should rewind our videos periodically to "preserve" them. One speaker reminded us that the strain of rewinding them is also damaging. We rewind them so the layers don't stick together, as they will in hot and humid conditions. At the very least, we were urged to avoid any fast-rewind devices.

We've also heard that we should copy our tapes every so many years; copy them just before they deteriorate onto fresh tape, and prolong their life. However, the quality of the image deteriorates with each generation of copy. A Paramount executive showed us a dramatic video that cut between various generations and types of copies, and restored originals. The differences were much greater than I would have anticipated. And, of course, copying raises the question of copyright. There was some discussion of this in a breakout session, but no resolution or agreement.

After thinking over these sessions, I recommend we all make sure our collections get used while they are usable. Wear them out. I have seen collections that were kept from use by librarians who felt the items were too expensive to use, by librarians who felt their role was to protect a collection from use, and by librarians who provided no access to a collection and complained it was never used. I would much rather see a collection used so heavily that the items wore out from use, rather than deteriorate, unused. For those items we really want to keep -- archival material, video theses, local productions -- we need to realize that real preservation of these materials demands storage in vaults with continual control of temperature and humidity. There are companies that provide this service. You may want to consider paying them to store your original material.

The institute was held on the Queen Mary, a beautifully preserved ship (the same age as I), that provided a lovely setting for a conference on preservation.

Return to Table of Contents

Keynote speaker, James Neal, Dean of Libraries at Indiana University spoke about the need and role of the librarian as a knowledge manager. The organization of Internet resources, the capture and delivery of full-text information, the training of patrons to function in this electronic environment, and the creation of a useful yet comfortable "cyberspace" where information can be easily identified, located, and retrieved are activities in which librarians of today ought to be engaged.

In his OCLC President's report, Dr. K. Wayne Smith focused on OCLC's three strategic priorities, namely, reference service, PRISM enhancements, and international operations. He reported that FirstSearch is doing quite well. New databases have been added and capabilities in the area of document ordering and delivery have been expanded. By Fall 1994, the remaining OCLC services still operating in First System, namely CJK, Union Listing, and the Name Address Directory will have migrated to PRISM. Retrospective conversion projects with Oxford's Bodleian Library, Cambridge University, the French Ministry of Education, and Waseda University will bring a wealth of international titles to enrich OCLC's Online Union Catalog.

Martin Dillon, Director, OCLC Library Resources Management Division, outlined the objectives of OCLC's resource sharing strategy which will tie together local systems, reference databases, and PRISM ILL to greatly facilitate the interlibrary loan process by reducing costs, expanding resource sharing, and improving productivity.

In the small group session I selected to attend (along with Alan Green, the MOUG representative who happened to attend the same session--kindred AV spirits must think alike), we discussed the need to make all types of library materials accessible via interlibrary loan, from the rare and brittle to the nonprint. This laudable goal will involve serious preservation and digitizing efforts. The need for graphic interfaces and images databases will be crucial. Standardized bibliographic description will play an even greater role in identifying these resources, linking disparate systems, and facilitating resource sharing among libraries of all types, sizes, and economic status.

The Technical Services Interest Group's discussion focused on the purpose, usefulness, and validity of classification given today's online environment. We talked about how libraries are currently handling this process and how more could be done cooperatively at the national level. OCLC is in the early stages of discussion for an electronic LC classification, similar to their "Electronic Dewey."

I welcomed the opportunity once again, to represent OLAC at OCLC Users Council. Our presence at this national forum is an opportunity for networking and an avenue for information and promotion of audiovisual cataloging. These were just the highlights of the meeting. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to talk about any of these issues in greater depth.

Return to Table of Contents

Computer Files:

• Proposal 94-9: Changes to the USMARC Bibliographic Format to Accommodate Online Systems and Services

  The proposal was approved. It adds a code for a new category of computer file, online systems and services, to 008/26 (Type of computer file). This category includes mainframe computer systems, electronic mail systems, and file servers. Two new fields were added to give contact information (field 270) and hours (field 307). A subfield has been added to field 856 (Electronic location and access) so that records for electronic files and documents can be linked to the record for the system on which they reside; for example, a record for the electronic version of Proposal 94-9 could be linked to a record for the Library of Congress system which hosts the USMARC electronic archives.

• Discussion Paper 78: Location and Access Information for Non-Internet Resources in USMARC Records

  This discussion paper was accepted, and a proposal will be prepared for discussion at Midwinter. The proposal will contain instructions for using field 856 for recording location and access information for non-Internet resources, which are typically retrieved through telephone connections; there may need to be new subfields added for recording telephone numbers and related information.

• Proposal 94-13: Interactive Multimedia Code for USMARC Bibliographic Format

  This proposal was approved. Interactive multimedia items will be identified as computer files in LDR/6 (Type of record); a new code for interactive multimedia will be added to 008/26 (Type of computer file). These changes support cataloging according to the Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia, just published by ALA.

• Proposal 94-17: Changes to the USMARC Bibliographic Format to Accommodate the Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata

  Geospatial metadata is the $5 term for bibliographic descriptions of the data collected by remote sensing satellites. The government has been collecting vast quantities of this data for decades now and has recently decided that it needs to be brought under control. The government centers that collect and store the data have developed a standard for describing it, and this proposal deals with coding this information in USMARC. There are significant additions to fields 034 (Coded cartographic mathematical data) and 255 (Cartographic mathematical data), as well as two new fields for even more detailed mathematical data and several new note fields for describing various attributes of the data (including its reliability). Some changes to existing fields were approved and new fields were approved provisionally, which means that we want to make sure that they work before we make a final decision. Although some libraries may receive and use these records, it is anticipated that all the records will be created by the centers that "own" the data.

• Proposal 94-12: Core Record Designation in USMARC Bibliographic Records

  The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), coordinated by the Library of Congress, is developing a new content standard for bibliographic records. Called "core level," these are supposed to be records that all members of the program are willing to create and which most libraries should be willing to use without modification (in other words, they will be treated as if they were "DLC/DLC" records). The proposal was approved. A code will be added to LDR/17 (Encoding level) to identify records that meet the "core" standard. In addition, a code will be added to field 042 (Authentication Code) to identify records created by members of the PCC program, just as codes currently identify records created by CONSER members.

• Discussion Paper 79: Defining Subfield $v for Form Subdivision in the USMARC Formats

  Once again, a separate subfield code for form subdivisions was discussed. No proposal had been presented because of anticipated difficulties arising from implementing form subdivisions in LCSH. While admitting that there are significant problems concerning LCSH and that there has been no clear decision whether and how LC is willing to change LCSH, it was decided once again that a proposal will be prepared for Midwinter. This proposal will concentrate on the coding of form subdivisions within MeSH and AAT, both of which are anxious to be able to use this subfield. The question of form data in LCSH remains as murky as it has always been.

• Proposal 94-15: Field Link and Sequence Information in the USMARC Formats

  This innocent little proposal may revolutionize the way MARC records are constructed. It proposes a general technique that can be used for linking any group or groups of fields within a record. Two general categories of linkages are discussed in the proposal: (1) An explicit searching linkage. This idea is most clear for sound recordings that contain several works. This technique would link all the access points (analytical composer/title entry, performer entries, subject headings) that pertain to a single work. This would allow a system to make sure that there are no false matches (yes, Artur Rubenstein is on this recording, but he's not performing the Chopin waltz!). (2) A virtual subrecord. This concept is being put forward as a technique for coding records for reproductions. All the fields describing the reproduction would be linked together so that a system could store and/or display them as a group. There are many other possible uses of such a subrecord technique. At the moment, the proposal was approved, but without any specific applications. The first application that will be proposed, probably for Midwinter, is the searching linkage for sound recordings. An application to reproductions may also be forthcoming soon, and other applications may follow. Watch this space!

Format integration is on schedule. All parties say that implementation of the integration of the variable fields (fields 010-999) should be completed by the end of 1994.

LC has just published a new edition of the USMARC Bibliographic Format. This edition includes all the format integration changes that will be implemented this year. In addition, it includes several recently-approved fields such as 856 (Electronic location and access).

Conclusion:

The complete text of the MARBI proposals is available through the LC gopher: marvel.loc.gov. Log in as "marvel" and follow the menus to "4. Libraries and publishers"-->"6. USMARC Standards".

Finally, remember that MARBI approval does not mean that the changes described above can be used immediately. No change will be implemented until at least 3 months after publication by LC, which gives time for the utilities and local systems to do their thing. Watch for updates to your utility's and system's documentation.

Return to Table of Contents

The most interesting development to report is the publication by ALA of the Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia. These guidelines are designed to be used by American libraries in applying AACR2R to interactive media. Their implementation by OCLC has been announced and can be found on p. 42-43 of this issue. It is anticipated that the RLIN instructions will be similar.

Return to Table of Contents

Diane Boehr presented CAPC's proposal to alter AACR2R 7.7B2 to better accommodate user-assisted technologies such as closed captioning and described video.

Joan Schuitema led a discussion on the work of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) towards creating a standard for a core bibliographic record for music. The idea is to create a record that will require little or no editing. PCC is distributing surveys in order to determine appropriate standards. Schuitema asked people present to fill them out and return them.

On Tuesday afternoon there was a discussion of meeting times for the AV Committee. The Sunday 8-9 AM meeting will be kept as is. Five people present preferred a meeting on Monday afternoon; ten preferred Tuesday morning. Sheila Smyth will pursue the possibility of a Tuesday morning meeting.

The Producer/Distributor Library Relations Subcommittee (PDLR) hopes to have a draft of their brochure, Happiness is Having One Title, by October and a completed draft by Midwinter. The Publisher-Vendor- Library Relations Electronic Licensing Discussion Group is working on guidelines for libraries and producers. PDLR is available for assistance if their input is needed. Future projects may include video licensing.

The Standards Subcommitee is continuing to develop its document on packaging and labelling. It is reevaluating spine information and doing mockups. They will be asking someone from the Interactive Multimedia Task Force to work with them on their document on interactive multimedia.

Martha Yee reported on the work of the Uniform Title Task Force. Generally, it was felt that the current LCRI 25.5B is deficient and needs to be rescinded or revised. At the same time, there was some question as to whether Chapter 25 of AACR2R is adequate. The Committee did not agree on what the next step should be, but discussion will continue.

The Task Force to Examine Liaison Relationships has completed an interim report. The ALCTS Organization and Bylaws Committee would like to be kept informed of the Task Force's work. Eric Childress will look for any guidelines on liaisons' duties. One of the next steps will be for ALCTS AV to pursue liaison relationships with other organizations.

The Task Force on Labels is looking at the use of "label" as a term in chapters 6 and 9 of AACR2R. It hopes to have a report by the Midwinter meeting of ALA.

The Video Round Table will hold a gala next year at Facets Multimedia, the video producer, as well as a program on digital video. The roundtable is in the process of redesigning its newsletter.

The ALCTS AV tour of the Louis Wolfson II Media History Center and its program, "Acquiring Librarians Want to Know: Acquisition and Collection Development of Video Resources," were both rated very good. The Committee is working on pulling together information from the evaluations.

Return to Table of Contents

The presenters were Mary Larsgaard of the Map and Imagery Lab of UC Santa Barbara and Elizabeth (Betsy) Mangan of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division.

This workshop did not include information on the cataloging of globes or atlases or rare maps. It did include the cataloging of maps, remote sensing, which includes air photos and satellite photos, and digital data. The Library of Congress has not collected digital data until recently, so the information on the cataloging of digital data came from libraries that do catalog this material. LC also catalogs very little remote-sensing imagery, so here again, examples are from libraries that do that type of cataloging.

The handout packet included a bibliography of map cataloging reference works. Some of the books in this bibliography include Chapter 3 on cartographic materials of AACR2, the LC G classification schedule and LC's list of geographic cutters, the Map Cataloging Manual published by the Library of Congress in 1991, and Cartographic Materials: a Manual of Interpretation for AACR2, prepared by the Anglo-American Cataloging Committee for Cartographic Materials and published by ALA in 1982, for which a revised edition may be published in 1996. A natural map scale indicator was provided in each packet courtesy of Will Tefft of Map Link, Santa Barbara, a map jobber. The phone number for Map Link is 805-965-4402.

Map series are different from book series in that they may include different editions. An example of a monographic map series is the USGS 1:24,000 series, which is a monographic series and is cataloged like a monographic book series. A map series may be confused with a multi-sheet single map. In the case of a multi-sheet single map, the border of the map is only complete when the maps are put together. In a map series, the black border line goes all the way around each sheet. Map series can be cataloged as a whole or each sheet can be cataloged separately. A mother-daughter record can be made in which the daughter record gives only information unique to one particular sheet. These are allowed by AACR2R but not necessarily by MARC, although apparently this is an option that can be used in the AMC format. If the series title changes slightly, this can be recorded in a note, but if the series number changes, a new record should be made. If there is a change in edition, sometimes a new record is needed, and sometimes not. In the case of U.S. maps, usually a note is made stating the series includes various editions. It is possible to obtain the vendor catalog for the government agency which published the series and order the index in order to have an overview of the series. World Mapping Today, published by Butterworths of London in 1987, has an index to map series, as does the Geokatalog published by Geocenter in Stuttgart. One needs to have the index before cataloging the map series. There are very few map serials. LC Geography & Map Division has consistently cataloged United States official road maps as serials.

If there is more than one map on a sheet, it is necessary to decide which is the principal map unless it is indicated. Photocopying is a common method of publishing maps, especially by some state and foreign geological surveys. For facsimile maps done under AACR2R, the original version is described in the 534 field, and a facsimile note is added.

Remote sensing imagery includes aerial photography and satellite imagery; in the latter, the most common is Landsat imagery. The first 500 note shows what area is covered by the photo because these photos often do not have titles. Sometimes remote imagery is stretched to include things similar to maps, but it should only include photos taken from a place directly overhead. The physical description for these maps is "1 remote- sensing image." Spatial data may also be in digital form. NOAA is one of the big producers of this type of data. There are two types of digital data, raster and vector. Vector deals with digital line graphs, and raster deals with such matters as elevation data and remote-sensing imagery collected in digital form.

Often an agency is the main entry for a map, except in the case of some monographic map series, in which case, a field geologist may have the intellectual responsibility for the map. If there is a personal author, use it. Map-producing agencies seem not to change their names as frequently as do other government agencies. The smaller countries often have at the most two map-producing agencies. In the United States, the United States Geological Survey produces both geological and topographical maps. The 245 field information comes from the piece in hand, but there is a broad definition of the chief source of information for maps. The envelope or box can be used as the chief source of information, and the information needed for cataloging may be all over the sheet. Statements of responsibility can be very long. Remote sensing images often do not have very much information on them. The cataloger needs to use his/her judgement and the size of the type faces in determining what the main part of the title is. The cataloger should look for phrases that will make sense to the user. It may be necessary to construct a title. The title should include the area covered by the map and the subject covered by the map if there is one. The title should not start with "Map of ... " unless there is no other option. This made-up title would be in brackets. It is also possible to add bracketed information to a title if the title is not descriptive enough

. The 255 field contains the scale, the projection, and the coordinates of the area covered by the map. There are guidelines to determine the scale of a map, or the natural scale indicator can be used. The scale is in subfield $a, the projection is in subfield $b, and the coordinates are in subfield $c. If one has a 255 field, one also has to have an 034 field, which is the coded version of this information. The information has to be transcribed exactly as it appears on the map. Do not put brackets around the word scale. If there is no projection given on the map, the cataloger does not need to fill in the 255 subfield $b. Some people are of the opinion that it is only necessary to add the coordinates for maps of non-political areas for which there is not a good LC subject heading, but they can be included in the record if they are on the piece. It is possible to figure the coordinates out by comparing them with another map. Do not bracket anything in the subfield $c.

The dates on commercially-produced road maps are often in code, and it takes a magnifying glass to see them. It is a good idea to put a photocopy of date codes by commercial vendors in the 260 subfield $c portion of your cataloging format, so you can look them up quickly. These codes appeared in several issues of the Western Association of Map Libraries' Information Bulletin. Often a government agency is both the author and publisher of a map. It is necessary to give both the folded as well as the unfolded dimensions of a map in the 300 field subfield $c. A map is measured from the neat line to the neat line (black line around edges of map). If the maps in one series are different sizes or one map is made up of different-sized sheets, give the size of the largest map in the 300 field (the largest dimension both for height and width even though no sheet of the map may be that size). There can be books and maps in the same series.

The note fields are very important. Notes should be accurate and brief, and should be in the order of the fields they refer to. The first note covers the nature and scope of the map and is only used when the title of the map is not sufficiently descriptive. This is particularly handy for remote sensing. Next is the date of situation note, which is the date of the data on the map. The next note tells how the relief is shown on the map--contour lines, soundings, shaded relief, spot heights, various levels of hactures. Other notes address language, parallel titles, statements of responsibility, edition, publication data, projection, kind of audience, other media in which the map is available, contents--what is on the recto and what is on the verso of the map, a bibliography note, and notes on insets and illustrations, which are very important.

[Look for part 2, subject headings and classification of maps, in the December issue of the OLAC Newsletter. --ed.]

Return to Table of Contents

AVERY REFERENCE FILE BECOMES AUTHORITY FILE: In June 1994, the Avery Reference File migrated from the RLIN Special Database environment to become the fourth RLIN authority file, along with LC Names, LC Subjects, and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus. The headings in the Avery Reference File support the bibliographic records in the Avery Index of Architectural Periodicals, which is a CitaDel database, available via subscription.

FREE ACCESS FOR GRADUATE LIBRARY STUDIES PROGRAMS: Beginning in September, RLG will make instructional access to the RLIN library support system and Eureka search service available free of charge to ALA-accredited library science programs.

ENHANCED VERSION OF EUREKA: Following user suggestions, RLG tuned the June 1994 release of Eureka so that it would take action when it's clear what the user intended, even if there are errors. More synonyms are accepted for commands. Browse and Find commands can be initiated by the single letters "b" or "f". RLG's Eureka development team dubbed this their "do-what-I-mean" release. Eureka recently logged its millionth search.

ARIEL FOR WINDOWS: In direct response to requests from Ariel users, the Research Libraries Group (RLG) has developed a new version of Ariel that is a Microsoft Windows 3.1 application.

The Windows Advantage

The new Ariel for Windows makes it easier for users to send and receive documents, supports a wider array of popular printers and scanners, and uses group 4 compression to increase storage capacity and shorten transmission times. Other advantages include easy installation and troubleshooting, use of letter, legal, or A4 paper sizes, true background operation, TIFF image file importation capability, abundant online help, and more.

However, some of the underlying features that give Ariel for Windows its superior functionality (e.g. group 4 compression, FTP file transfer) make it unable to exchange files with the version of Ariel you currently have. In consequence, RLG is phasing out earlier versions of Ariel in favor of the new version.

For current users not interested in Windows capability we have created a DOS-only version of Ariel that can exchange files with Ariel for Windows. You may upgrade to that package via anonymous FTP at no charge.

To Order

The initial shipping date for the new Ariel was August 15. Switchover to the new Ariel for all users is scheduled for September 30, 1994.

For further information about Ariel for Windows, required equipment, or acquiring the new DOS-only version, please contact the RLIN Information Center toll-free at 1-800-537-RLIN.

NEW PRESERVATION MANUAL: RLG has recently published RLG Archives Microfilming Manual. Designed as a companion to the 1992 RLG Preservation Microfilming Handbook, the 208-page volume is an outgrowth of RLG's Archives Preservation Microfilming Project (APMP). The manual is intended as a pragmatic guide for institutions contemplating or about to launch a microfilming project or program.

For more information, please contact Kristin Tague, 415-691-2264, fax: 415-964-0943, e-mail: bl.krt@rlg.stanford.edu.

FTP FOR DATALOADS: FTP for records created in local systems to RLIN in place of communication by tape has been in beta test and will be available by September 1994. The next step will be record transfer for records from RLIN to local systems.

USMARC HOLDINGS: The next phase of RLIN's implementation of the USMARC Holdings Format, the display of USMARC holdings data on the RLIN FULL and PARtial record displays, is expected to be completed by the end of August 1994. The final phase, which includes input, update, and export of USMARC holdings data will be scheduled at a later date.

FORMAT INTEGRATION: RLIN's plan for the implementation of the next phase of format integration, the validity of all variable fields for all material types, is on target for installation at the end of 1994. This installation is being coordinated with the Library of Congress, OCLC, WLN, ISM, and the National Library of Canada. Check with your local system vendors for their format integration plans.

ZEPHYR (Z39.50 SERVER): Zephyr, RLG's Z39.50 server is available for RLIN and CitaDel access for institutions with Z39.50 clients. Zephyr enables an institution to mount RLIN bibliographic and CitaDel files as an option on a local OPAC that can be searched using your own user interface.

For further information about any of the above topics, please contact the RLIN Information Center toll-free at 1-800-537-RLIN.

Return to Table of Contents

DATABASE QUALITY: Since ALA Midwinter, OCLC has completed processing of automated corrections for personal names. About 2.5 million headings were corrected. Total automated corrections (personal and corporate names and LC subjects) have reached 5.6 million. Work has begun on similar correction software for MeSH and for series headings.

Plans are under way to run the Duplication Detection and Resolution software on a semi-annual basis. Six libraries are currently part of a test of electronic error reporting via the Internet with the potential to expand to all institutions in the fall.

ACCESS: A year-long experiment offering Internet access to the PRISM service began in April. A new version of PASSPORT for DOS (2.10) is currently being shipped. It includes support for Union Listing and the Name Address Directory. Work continues on PASSPORT for Windows with demo sessions scheduled for this ALA Conference.

PRISM SERVICE: Union Listing and the Name Address Directory will move into the PRISM service during the last weekend in August. CJK Plus users will also move to PRISM in late summer. This represents the last of the First System users to move to PRISM. In early December, current LSP users will be migrated into the PRISM environment. The first phase of format integration (the extension of variable fields across formats and other variable field changes) will also be implemented by the end of the year.

In the coming months, OCLC will begin a field test of Z39.50 client software that will provide access to FirstSearch databases from within the PRISM service. While initial use will focus on ILL users, this software may also be used in the future to provide access to databases that may be useful for cataloging. Development work also continues on PromptCat and on other projects to integrate and automate the acquisition and cataloging process.

OCLC has also completed development of a new instructional package, PRISM Basics. The package offers both computer-based training and paper-based exercises to train users in basic searching and system navigation and in "reading" MARC record displays. Information about acquiring PRISM Basics is included with the distribution of PASSPORT 2.10.

Return to Table of Contents

Prepared by the Interactive Multimedia Guidelines Review Task Force of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA), these guidelines offer instructions on the cataloging of interactive multimedia resources. This emerging new class of materials uses sophisticated computer technology to allow users to navigate randomly through many types of media, interacting almost conversationally with the machine, customizing each presentation. Such materials are available in a variety of physical formats for a variety of machine environments.

These guidelines are based on AACR2R concepts, particularly those found in the chapters for computer files, motion pictures and videorecordings, sound recordings, and kits/multimedia (Chapters 9, 7, 6, and 1). They occasionally stretch those concepts to cover situations not specifically addressed in the existing rules. The guidelines are intended for temporary use within the Anglo-American cataloging community, allowing catalogers to test their usefulness before formal rule revision takes place.

Recommendations

OCLC users may now begin to use the guidelines as the basis for preparing and upgrading bibliographic records for interactive multimedia. Please follow these recommendations:

Use the Computer Files format for all materials cataloged according to these guidelines.

Records for interactive multimedia created before the publication of these guidelines may already exist on either the Audiovisual Media format or the Computer Files format. Keep this in mind when searching. DO NOT enter duplicate records for items on the incorrect bibliographic format. Please call OCLC to report such records for Type Code changes.

Enhance participants authorized for the Computer Files format may upgrade any member-input record in that format to conform to these guidelines. We encourage users to apply for Enhance; please contact your network for applications and instructions.

Minimal-level records (K, M, 2, 5, or 7) may also be upgraded by most other users.

Because of staffing limitations, OCLC asks that change requests to modify existing records to conform to the new guidelines not be submitted.

Use the new GMD "interactive multimedia."

Records created using these guidelines should be considered as "pure" AACR2R records ("Desc" is coded "a" and 040 subfield $e is not used).

You may choose to follow either option to describe interactive multimedia made up of multiple physical carriers, either grouping all physical descriptions together or providing separate physical descriptions for each distinct class of material. The use of multiple 300 fields is provided for in the OCLC MARC format.

Publication of the guidelines will require revisions and additions to instructions and examples in OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards. The guidelines will be added to the list of useful documents in Section 1.4 and be incorporated into Section 2.1.

Future Considerations

Because interactive multimedia works may share the characteristics of a number of kinds of materials either within a single physical carrier or across multiple physical carriers, these materials will be well served by format integration. The extension of fields across all types of materials, the use of field 006 for additional characteristics, and the use of any available 007 field will all be helpful in the future.

The need to indicate interactive multimedia in a record in coded form as well as in the GMD has been recognized. A new code in the fixed field Type of computer file ("File"; 008/26) was approved by MARBI at its June 1994 meeting. This new code will be published with the remaining format integration changes. OCLC will implement the code at a future date dictated by the schedule for format integration, probably not before the end of 1995.

Return to Table of Contents

Due to the short timeframe LC has allowed, OCLC is unable to prepare and distribute a Technical Bulletin with sufficient advance notice to announce the change and still continue to load LC records. OCLC apologizes for any problems this may cause users. Technical Bulletin no. 204, PRISM Service Changes, will be distributed at about the time of implementation for Books format records.

The definition for the second indicator in fields 700, 710, 711, and 730 will be:

   'blank'     No information provided.  Used to indicate that the added
               entry is not for an analytic.  'Blank' replaces 0 and 1. 
   0           Alternative entry 
   1           Secondary entry 
   2           Analytical entry.  Use to indicate that the item in hand
               contains the work that is represented by the added entry.

Value 'blank' can be used in place of values '0' and '1'. '0' and '1' will be invalidated after the end of 1994.

For further information, contact:

Rich Greene, OCLC
800-848-5878 (phone)
614-764-0155 (fax)
rog@oclc.org (e-mail)

On Oct. 4, 1994, OCLC and its regional network affiliates will host an international videoconference on the emerging electronic, digital library.

The purpose of the videoconference is to provide a forum for OCLC's 18,000 participating libraries to discuss the broad professional implications of the next stage of the electronic library -- in reference, cataloging, resource sharing, electronic publishing and education.

Sidney Verba, Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and Director of Harvard University Library, will be the keynote speaker. He will be joined by a panel of distinguished librarians and educators who will address critical issues that libraries and librarians face as they move to the next stage of the electronic library.

Panel members include: Christine Deschamps, Director, the University Library, University Rene Descartes (Paris V), France; Nancy L. Eaton, Dean of Library Services, Iowa State University and Chair, OCLC Board of Trustees; Hardy R. Franklin, Director of the District of Columbia Public Library and immediate Past President of ALA; Derek G. Law, Librarian, Law Library, Kings College, London, England; Clifford Lynch, Director of Library Automation, University of California, San Francisco; W. David Penniman, President, Council on Library Resources; and Duane Webster, Executive Director, Association of Research Libraries. K. Wayne Smith, OCLC President and CEO, will host the videoconference.

"We plan to involve librarians and participating libraries in as many villages, towns, cities, and countries as we can in this dialogue," said Dr. Smith. "This international videoconference is a public service, and there will be no charge for attending. It is open to all who are interested in the future of libraries."

The videoconference will be held Tuesday, Oct. 4, 1994, 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., Eastern time. The program will originate live from OCLC and will be broadcast via satellite to downlink sites throughout North America, the United Kingdom and Europe. A toll-free phone bank will take calls from users at the downlink sites. OCLC's regional network affiliates are coordinating downlink sites in the U.S., and OCLC Europe is coordinating sites in Europe.

Additional information about the videoconference is available from OCLC-affiliated regional networks and OCLC Europe.

Return to Table of Contents

These guidelines remain in compliance with AACR2, 2nd, 1988 revision, as far as is possible, but it was necessary to depart from AACR2R because of the unique nature of these materials and because of the necessity of treating interactive multimedia works as entire entities.

The guidelines were tested out by having volunteer catalogers use the draft guidelines to catalog a packet of five to six surrogate examples of interactive multimedia works in a two-week period and send their comments to the Task Force. The guidelines are clear and seem to cover every aspect of cataloging this material. However, the catalog-card style examples are in one section, and the MARC-tagged examples for the same titles are in a separate section. This makes it necessary to flip back and forth to see both forms for one title. It would have been more useful to have the MARC-tagged example directly follow the catalog card-style example for the same title.

The glossary and the selected annotated bibliography of other resource materials on interactive media are also useful. It would have been interesting to include a discussion of why the Computer Files format was chosen to catalog this material, although after format integration, the choice of format will not be so important.

Published in 1994 by: American Library Association, Chicago, IL (ix, 43 p.) ISBN 0-8389-3445-5. $12.00 pbk. ALA member price $10.00.

Reviewed by Katherine L. Rankin (University of Nevada, Las Vegas)

Return to Table of Contents

The presentation in each chapter follows a consistent and logical arrangement and is quite clear. Each area of the bibliographic description is commented upon and illustrative examples are provided. Following this is a series of full cataloged examples. Three displays for each example are provided: a bibliographic record in card format, a tagged and coded record in USMARC format (but without 007 tags), and a citation list to AACR2R and Library of Congress Rule Interpretations by MARC tags.

While the examples provide full records that include subject headings there is no discussion of choice and form of descriptive access points or of subject analysis. Likewise, there is no explanation of the USMARC tagging. Although it is very useful to provide rule and LCRI citations, the arrangement by USMARC tags for each example is somewhat confusing. It might be better to arrange this information in the first part of each chapter where the areas of the bibliographic description are discussed and to provide one master USMARC tagged worksheet for each format that explains the data elements for each tag. This would save space and reduce the redundancy now present. Because of the comprehensiveness of content, the reader might also benefit from an orientation to the arrangement of the text and examples, and to the specific objectives that the manual intends to achieve. The range of examples provided is quite impressive and is perhaps one of the strongest aspects of the manual. In this respect, the chapter on electronic resources is particularly noteworthy.

For these reasons, the audience for this manual will most likely be those who already have a basic understanding of AACR2R descriptive cataloging and the USMARC bibliographic formats. Such individuals will certainly benefit from the comprehensive array of nonbook cataloging examples. To facilitate learning, the reader should have access to AACR2R, LCRIs, and the USMARC biblio- graphic formats. This manual is a welcome addition to the literature of nonbook cataloging.

Published in 1993 by: Neal Schuman, New York (vii, 204 p.) ISBN 1-55570-124-8. $39.95 pbk.

Reviewed by Gary Rossi (University of California, Irvine)

Return to Table of Contents

QUESTION: I have been cataloging archival films for a while, but I am just starting to use the MARC format for this material. In the 007 and the notes area where you are discussing deterioration, what options are actually provided for? The only things you seem to be able to code for are things like "bubbles," "suspicious odor," "congealed," etc. or general statements like "none apparent." But I get notes with the material from our preservation section which say "shrinkage," "grainy," "red hue." This makes it appear that my only coded alternative is to say "none apparent" because none of my problems match the codes provided.

ANSWER: Don't feel limited by the codes. We only picked out three codes to use consistently on our records. We say anything that we need to say about deterioration in notes that are copy specific. We don't have any local applications that run off those preservation codes in the 007 and I am not aware of anyone using them for any specific purpose in their online systems. So, we are a little blase about those codes. --- Martha Yee (UCLA Film Archive) Audience member

QUESTION: According to AACR2R you are to select the person or entity which is given prominence in the chief source of information, such as the title screen, as the author. We have noticed in watching some videorecordings that at the beginning you have a variety of people and the tasks they have performed. At the very end of the credit crawl there is a line oftentimes which states: "Columbia Tri-Star is to be considered the author of this videotape for international purposes." Based on policy as I understand it from AACR2R wording, this entity has been given prominence by wording as to authorship of this item. Would I be correct in using this example to use Columbia Tri-Star Pictures as the author of the item?

ANSWER: No. Most of us would consider that a videorecording is the product of many different "authors," that is, to have been created by "mixed responsibility." Because of the many people involved, the video would be cataloged as a title main entry. --- ASF

No. I would guess that that statement is for the purposes of copyright ownership. They don't mean by "author" what you as a cataloger mean by "author." --- EG

This entity would not meet the cataloging definition of authorship. --- ASF

QUESTION: Has the proposal about treating videorecordings of Shakespeare's plays and opera differently than other video works of shared authorship died, or is it still alive?

ANSWER: There is no proposal that opera videos be entered under composer main entry. In fact the paper that we discussed in CAPC did not stand as an actual proposal either. This has been discussed on the music listserv recently. Putting dramatic works under composer or author of the original work has support amongst some groups of catalogers. But there is currently no formal proposal to do that. --- Richard Harwood (U of Tenn.--Knoxville)

QUESTION: Can the subject heading "Feature films" be subdivided geographically? And, if it can, does the geographical location selected refer to where the film was made, the language of the film or the location where the action takes place (that is, the area that is the focus of the story)?

ANSWER: Yes, it can be divided geographically. The country should be based on where the item was produced. --- ASF

The international organization FIAF has elaborate rules for deciding what the country of production is for co-productions. You have to figure out the address of the production agency and use that as the country of origin. Film people are interested in the country of origin in that sense. As country of origin becomes muddled because of several possible co-producers being involved, this aspect becomes less interesting, and not really worth spending a lot of time on. --- Martha Yee

They have those arguments every year when they get to the point of making academy award nominations for foreign films, trying to decide what the country of origin of this film is. But consider this, if it is so hard to identify what the country of origin is, will a heading "Feature films-- France" really be a heading that will be helpful? --- EG

QUESTION: We received a few years ago scientific material on five floppy disks, consisting of a database and retrieval software, plus 2 or 3 manuals. Recently, we received an update to the whole thing which included a new version of the retrieval software, a replacement for one of the manuals, and some replacement pages for another of the manuals. It acts a lot like a looseleaf service. Have others of you run into items like this and how have you treated them?

ANSWER: It sounds like you'd handle it the same way as a loose-leaf product. Leave dates open, make notes that pieces are updated, and record the updates in the holdings area. --- EG

It sounds like they want you to keep the original package and that what you are doing is just adding and taking away from pieces and parts of the whole. So I would put that information on the original record in notes. We did this at LC in a 590 local note. ---ASF

We have treated a similar case as a serial, with an added title entry. We got updates to the software and a letter from the publisher stating that the title was changing slightly but the content of the database was not changing. We consulted with the reference department to see how the product was used and decided to just add a title entry to the existing record and not add a new record to OCLC for it. ---LJ

Unless we know that it is the publisher's intention to continue to issue updates, we would be reluctant to open it up as if it were a loose-leaf or serial. We would rather edit the existing record. It is not a perfect solution, but they may issue just this one update and no others. --- Unidentified audience member

Another option would be to create a new bib record for the update material and then refer back to the original package in your 538 system requirements note. --- Unidentified audience member

I am not sure I'd want to do that. The updates have been published precisely to be connected to the original package. --- ASF

I agree with Ann. Only a portion of the original is being replaced. The second item would be useless as it stood if you just cataloged that as a new edition. --- EG

That does not, however, mean that there may not be additional records in a shared database, depending at which point each institution acquired the package. Someone else buying that package new today would be getting a different "version" from the original one you purchased. We might end up in a shared database with different records describing various "snapshots" of the package over a period of time. --- GP

QUESTION: Some of the same issues are coming up with videorecordings which are first issued as separate videodiscs and later the publisher comes out with a piece of computer software to accompany and access the disc, thereby turning it into an interactive multimedia package. To make matters even worse, some of the time computer software is issued to run different types of computer systems, like a Mac and IBM computer. There is a mix of things happening to these. Some catalogers are cataloging these as separate items, some are pulling them together. Plus, in some cases different vendors are making different software packages to run the same videodisc. Can you comment on these issues?

ANSWER: The interactive multimedia guidelines are suggesting than when an existing item becomes interactive through addition of a piece of software, we need to make a new bibliographic record. That doesn't mean that the shared database cannot retain the separate record for the original single videodisc. There will still be others who own only that videodisc. It becomes a new "thing" when it becomes interactive. --- LJ

QUESTION: I am having difficulty with a product from Instructional Resources Corp. They initially issued a western history slide set (2400 slides), then one on eastern Europe and one on US history. We own all three slide sets, but decided we would like to try one on videodisc. When we first got the videodisc, it just came as a videodisc and was cataloged on WLN as a videodisc. Subsequently, we got the software, both for IBM and for the Mac, to make this an interactive videodisc. For the IBM the first computer disk is an installation disk, the second disk is for our videodisc, the third and fourth computer disks are for the videodiscs we didn't buy, and the fifth computer disk is just a driver piece of software which we didn't need. When I went to catalog this, I couldn't decide whether to list this as having five disks, even though two of the disks apply to videodiscs we don't own and the first and fifth disks are nothing the public will ever need. These are numbered one through five. Would I include all the software disks in my record?

ANSWER: I would definitely create a new record, not try to add to the existing videodisc record. Also, list all of the software disks that you have and then explain in a note that two of the disks are to be used with videodiscs which the library doesn't own. --- ASF

QUESTION: What is the correct thing to say in the 256 (computer file characteristics) field for a book in electronic form (on CD- ROM)? Neither computer data nor computer programs seems quite appropriate.

ANSWER: Computer data is the appropriate phrase. Data covers text as well as graphics and numerical software. If you did have any software that is used for retrieval or anything like that then it would be "computer data and computer program." --- ASF

Return to Table of Contents
Top

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