Return to Table of Contents

1. Call to Order, Introduction of Officers, Announcements (H. Hutchinson)

   The Business meeting was called to order by OLAC President Heidi Hutchinson at 8:10 p.m. Officers were introduced: Heidi Hutchinson (President), Richard Harwood (Vice President/President Elect) was unable to attend, Johanne LaGrange (Treasurer), Cathy Gerhart (Secretary), Sue Neumeister (Newsletter Editor), Diane Boehr (CAPC Chair), and Mary Konkel (Past President)

   H. Hutchinson announced the results of the recent OLAC election. Sue Neumeister will be the Vice President/President Elect and the Secretary will be Pat Thompson. She thanked Karen Driessen and Jo Davidson for their work on the Elections Committee.

   There was no nomination for the OLAC Award.

   There will be many opportunities for OLAC volunteers. There are openings for CC:DA Audience Observer and Newsletter Editor-in-Chief.

2. Secretary's Report (C. Gerhart)

   The minutes of the Business meeting of January 20, 1996 (ALA Midwinter Conference) were approved as published in the June 1996 OLAC Newsletter.

3. Treasurer's Report (J. LaGrange)

   J. LaGrange gave a preliminary Treasurer's report since the statements had not yet arrived. We spent $215 more than we brought in for the year. Membership of OLAC has remained stable, currently at 626. In the next Newsletter there will be an annual report.

4. Newsletter Editor-in-Chief's Report (S. Neumeister)

   S. Neumeister reported that the Conference issue of the Newsletter in now on the Web Page. The position of Conference Reports Editor is now open. If anyone would like to consider serving in that capacity contact S. Neumeister. The Newsletter editorship is also still open. The deadline for the September issue is August 1.

   S. Neumeister was given a hearty thanks for all her work on the Newsletter and Web Page.

5. Committee Reports
   1. Cataloging Policy Committee (CAPC) (D. Boehr)

      Please see separately submitted minutes of the CAPC meeting in this issue.

   2. 1996 OLAC Conference Planning (M. Konkel)

      M. Konkel reported on the plans for the 1996 OLAC Conference. She encouraged people to register early since many workshops will be assigned based on postmark. There will be various tours that will be offered for people coming Wednesday afternoon. Transportation from the airport is being arranged. As well as the full workshops, there will be short 1 hour sessions on current topics of interest. Registration includes breaks and the luncheon banquet. Thursday night there will be a reception with music. The complete schedule of the Conference is on the OLAC Web Page at:

      http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/
      A new feature of the conference is poster sessions.

   3. OLAC Conference Scholarship Committee (Virginia Berringer)

      The Committee (Pat Thompson, Bobby Ferguson and V. Berringer) will be recommending one person and two alternates as recipients of this scholarship to the Board on Sunday night. Although a very difficult decision, the opportunity to give this scholarship is an important one for OLAC.

6. Liaison/Observer Reports
   1. ALCTS AV (Brad Eden)

      B. Eden was not present but please see separately submitted report in this issue.

   2. AMIA (Martha Yee)

      M. Yee was not present but please see separately submitted report in this issue.

   3. CC:DA (Pat Thompson)

      Please see separately submitted report in this issue.

   4. MARBI (John Attig)

      Please see separately submitted report in this issue.

   5. MOUG (Richard Baumgarten)

      Please see separately submitted report in this issue.

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

      There was no LC report.

   2. OCLC (Glenn Patton)

      Please see separately submitted report in this issue.

   3. RLG (Ed Glazier)

      Please see separately submitted report in this issue.

8. Old Business

   There was no old business.

9. New Business

   There was no new business.

10. Adjournment

    H. Hutchinson thanked the two outgoing Executive Board members, Cathy Gerhart and Mary Konkel. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. and followed by a Question and Answer Session with a panel of experts.

Return to Table of Contents

1. Call to Order, Announcements (H. Hutchinson)

   The Board meeting was called to order by OLAC President Heidi Hutchinson at 8:12 p.m.

   Members present: Heidi Hutchinson (President), Catherine Gerhart (Secretary), Sue Neumeister (Newsletter Editor), Mary Konkel (Past President), and Johanne LaGrange (Treasurer)

   H. Hutchinson gave the Treasurer a donation from Innovative Interfaces Inc. for use at the OLAC Conference.

2. Secretary's Report, Approval of the Minutes (C. Gerhart)

   The OLAC Board meeting minutes of January 21, 1996 were approved as published in June 1996 OLAC Newsletter.

   The changes to the Handbook and the roster were discussed and approved.

3. Treasurer's Report (J. LaGrange)

   OLAC remains strong in membership and came out ahead for the quarter. The Conference budget may impact the OLAC treasury depending on the number of registrants we get.

4. Newsletter Editor-in-Chief's Report (S. Neumeister)

   There are some possible candidates for the Editor position, but as yet applications haven't been received. Although the deadline date has passed, applications will be taken until the position is filled. There is also an opening for Conference Report Editor.

   There was a short discussion of the possibility of changing the ALA meeting times around. Suggestions included moving the Membership meeting to Sunday night and moving the Executive Board meeting to Saturday night, Saturday morning, or Monday night. ALA will need to be consulted on these changes.

5. CAPC Report (D. Boehr)

   The NACO Advisory Committee was discussed. Ann Caldwell should be a member, along with the CAPC Chair. The Advisory Committee will help with policy making and choosing of participants. Initially there were 23 interested people in the NACO AV Funnel Project. These 23 people were asked to do a self study to help in the planning of this funnel. The Advisory Committee will be responsible for choosing the initial group to be trained from these people. Hutchinson will write up a draft of the Committee's membership and duties to be discussed at the OLAC meeting in October.

6. OLAC Conference Scholarship Committee Report (Virginia Berringer, Pat Thompson)

   V. Berringer reported that the Conference Scholarship Committee (P. Thompson, Bobby Ferguson, and V. Berringer) met and would like to recommend Rebecca L. Lubas to be the recipient of this award.

   The Committee also gave two alternate choices if R. Lubas is not able to attend. H. Hutchinson thanked the Committee for their work and asked that V. Berringer notify the recipient. The announcement will be made in the Newsletter.

7. Research Grant Discussion (J. LaGrange)

   The draft of the new Research Grant was discussed. Final changes were made to the proposal and plans were made to have it appear in the September Newsletter. The timelines for both the Research Grant and the Conference Scholarship will be included separately in the Handbook as well as in the general timeline. The membership of the Research Grant Committee was discussed and possible members identified. They will be announced at a later time.

8. 1996 OLAC Conference Planning Update and Discussion (M. Konkel)

   M. Konkel reported that plans for the Conference were going well. Transportation issues have been worked out. The budget for the meeting is somewhat up in the air since there is no way of knowing how many people will attend the Conference.

9. Other Business

   The OLAC Award Committee was appointed. The new Past President, Heidi Hutchinson will chair the Committee with two additional people. The OLAC Elections Committee was also appointed. The Past Past President, Mary Konkel, will chair with one additional person. Some people were suggested that M. Konkel will contact.

10. Hutchinson passed the gavel to the new OLAC President, Richard Harwood, even though he was unable to attend ALA.

11. The Board was then adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

Return to Table of Contents

VICE PRESIDENT/PRESIDENT ELECT:
SUE NEUMEISTER
Central Technical Services
Lockwood Library Bldg.
State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-2200
716-645-2305
716-645-5955 (Fax)
NEUMEIST@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

TREASURER:
JOHANNE LAGRANGE
Health Sciences Library
Columbia University
710 West 168th St.
New York, NY 10032
212-305-1406
212-234-0595 (Fax)
JL70@COLUMBIA.EDU

SECRETARY:
PAT THOMPSON
DuPont Library
University of the South
Sewanee, TN 27283
615-598-1657
615-598-1702 (Fax)
PTHOMPSO@SERAPH1.SEWANEE.EDU

NEWSLETTER EDITOR:
SUE NEUMEISTER(1992-1996)
KAY G. JOHNSON(1997- )
326 Hodges Library
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996-1000
423-974-6696
423-974-0551 (Fax)
JOHNSONK@UTK.EDU

CAPC CHAIR:
DIANE BOEHR
Costabile Associates, Inc.
4800 Montgomery Lane
Suite 1050
Bethesda, MD 20814
301-986-8560
DANNYB@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT:
HEIDI HUTCHINSON
Rivera Library
P.O. Box 5900
University of California
Riverside, CA 92517
714-787-5051
714-787-3285 (Fax)
HEIDI@CITRUS.UCR.EDU

OLAC LIAISON TO ALCTS AV, 1995-1997
(Association for Library Collections & Technical Services Audiovisual Committee)
DR. BRAD EDEN
North Harris Montgomery Community College District
250 N. Sam Houston Parkway East
Houston, TX 77060
BEDEN@NHMCCD.CC.TX.US

OLAC LIAISON TO AMIA, 1995-1997
(Association of Moving Image Archivists)
MARTHA YEE
UCLA Film and Television Archive
1015 N. Cahuenga
Hollywood, CA 90038
EFS4CMB@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU

OLAC AUDIENCE OBSERVER to CC:DA, 1995-1997
(Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access)
VIRGINIA M. BERRINGER
Bierce Library
The University of Akron
Akron, OH 44306-1712
VBERRINGER@UAKRON.EDU

OLAC LIAISON TO MARBI, 1995-1997
(Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee)
JOHN ATTIG
University Libraries
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
JCA@PSULIAS.PSU.EDU

OLAC LIAISON TO MOUG, 1995-1997
(Music OCLC Users Group)
RICHARD BAUMGARTEN
Johnson County Library
9875 W. 87th St.
Overland Park, KS 66212
BAUMGARTEN@JCL.LIB.KS.US

Return to Table of Contents

The second meeting of the ALCTS AV Committee was held on Tuesday, July 9, from 9:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Liaison reports were given. The ALCTS AV Publishers/ Distributors/Library Relations (PDLR) Subcommittee (Merle Slyhoff) distributed draft copies of their brochure, and hoped that it would be done by Midwinter. The ALCTS AV Standards Subcommittee (Virginia Berringer) reported on their comments concerning the Packaging of Multimedia standard, and asked whether they should be suspended or disbanded. The CC:DA Monday meeting agenda was presented by Mary Beth Fecko. The Computer Files Discussion Group (CFDG) liaison, Patricia Vanderberg, mentioned that there were 77,000 computer file records in OCLC, that InterCat will remain a separate database, that the 753 field has been ruled obsolete, and that H1520 in the Subject Cataloging Manual will give a stricter definition of the subdivision "Databases." One of the two speakers at CFDG mentioned that it cost $240 to catalog an item at LC! Anne Moore reported that there were 120 people at the AV program in New York on preservation concerns for nonprint materials, and everyone felt that this was a successful program. Marlyn Hackett reported that 42 people went on the ALCTS AV sponsored tour to the American Museum of the Moving Image in New York. A discussion ensued on LC's response to the query concerning the LCRI on using uniform titles for motion pictures. The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) has responded that they cannot develop the core record standards until this issue is resolved. OLAC may be approached for help in producing guidelines on this LCRI. A discussion of the AV Committee's charge and mission brought up the possible need for a name change for the Committee to better reflect the variety of materials the Committee is concerned with. One suggestion for a name was the ALCTS Media Resources Committee. New business included discussion of a possible 1998 program on AV outsourcing, and the 1997 tour in San Francisco. Questions were also raised as to whether OLAC and ALCTS AV want to give a combined response on the IFLA Bibliographic Standards document.

Return to Table of Contents

Brian Schottlaender reported that the JSC met June 21-22. His first agenda item was the current state of planning for the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR. This is the name being given to a conference of cataloging experts being convened by the JSC to address cataloging problems that stem from the basic concepts and organization of the cataloging rules. The details are not final, but current plans are for the meeting to be held in Toronto, in October of 1997. There will be about 40-50 invited participants and some invited observers. It is designed to be more of a workshop format rather than an academic conference but there will be papers presented. The proceedings of the conference will be published, and a Web site will be developed. The general topics that will be addressed include:

1. Content vs. carrier
   
2. Relationships between bibliographic entities
   
3. The concept of a work
   
4. Main entry
   
5. Corporate entry
   
6. The concept of publication
   
7. Relationship between AACR and the form of catalog technology (including MARC)

.

Laurel Jizba reported that although they have received some comments, more are needed. It would be helpful to have collective comments from cataloging groups. Comments are needed by November 1996. The guidelines probably need some revisions because they were written before format integration and there are also some errors.

Mitch Turitz reported that there have been no new comments since the last meeting. The guidelines may need to be rewritten with instructions for MARC tagging, but not until after MARBI has passed format changes that would enable the implementation of them.

Concerning both of the above sets of guidelines, discussion was held as to whether they should be translated into rule revisions rather than continue to exist as separate guidelines. It was pointed out that many of the issues in the interactive multimedia guidelines are being addressed in the still ongoing revision of the ISBD(CF). Also, issues concerning reproductions will probably be addressed at the upcoming International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR. CC:DA members are hesitant to put a lot of work into rule changes and revisions that will have to be rethought in light of any changes in the conceptual foundation of the rules. However, there may be some items that would lend themselves to rule revision proposals now, without being in danger of being overruled later.

This Task Force was appointed to address a disagreement put forth by the Music Library Association (MLA) concerning the choice of main entry for music moving image materials (composer vs. title), and to decide what the rules as currently written say to do. Dan Kinney reported that the Task Force has completed their report, which is a response to the two opposing position papers submitted by members of MLA. In summary, the Task Force concluded that the rules as currently written are inconclusive. One problem is that there are no rules on the main entry forany moving image materials, and none of the rules people are currently following were written for works of mixed responsibility. Another problem is the confusion over the concepts of "work" and "manifestation." There is no definition in the rules for either of these two terms, nor is there one for "principle responsibility." The Task Force presented some possible avenues for solving the problems: 1. Develop general and format-independent rules for entry (in effect, rewrite Chapter 21); 2. Expand the scope of the heading "musical materials" (just as much work as the first option); or 3. Develop new rules for entry of videorecordings. This last one would be the easiest and would provide a "quick fix" to the arguments, but would not solve the deeper problems. CC:DA does not want to attempt any of these actions until after the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR is held. The report of this Task Force is available in its entirety at URL:

This Task Force was formed to look more deeply into the issue of main entry for works that are intended for performance. Martha Yee reported that the Task Force met for the first time during this ALA Conference and had come up with an unfinished recommendation. The recommendation focuses on whether the work being cataloged is a completely new work or is a performance of a work that already exists in another format (e.g. a "straight-through" performance of a written play). The Task Force will present its final report at the 1997 Midwinter meeting.

This series of reports is from groups outside of CC:DA which are looking at issues of concern to CC:DA. The purpose is to understand each group's focus and to coordinate similar efforts.

1. Program for Cooperative Cataloging Task Group to Review AACR2

   Barbara Tillett reported that the Task Group is working on a position paper addressing Rule 0.24 which puts forth the basic principle of cataloging from the item in hand according to the physical format of that item. The paper points out that our cataloging rules were organized by physical characteristics of materials, and were focused on tangible objects, but now we are faced more and more with intangible objects. The materials we catalog now, such as electronic media, are characterized by instability of location and content, and are continually changing. The group does not have any specific recommendations yet, but is working on defining some possible approaches to accommodate new materials, such as adding new chapters to the code or changing rules in existing chapters. The results may not radically change the rules but may change our focus and rationale. In response to Barbara's report, a CC:DA member suggested a third approach, which would be to provide a better analysis in the rules of what kinds of physical formats each type of content could have. We should not be restrained from picking out and using the rules that best fit the particular item that we are cataloging. This Task Group maintains a Web page at URL:

   http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/aacr2rev.html

2. ALCTS/PARS (Preservation and Reformatting Section) Intellectual Access Committee

   Bob Wolven reported that this Committee's role is not to revise rules, so they don't have a position paper or anything like that, but they do have a lot of discussions. Their needs in bibliographic description and access are based not on the object in hand, but on where it came from. They need to be able to track a change in formats, especially for multigenerational reproductions. Some reproductions are combinations of several different formats. They have not come to a consensus on how much detail is needed, or where this information should be located--whether in metadata that accompanies a file or in a bib record that is shared, etc. The advantage of sharing information is to avoid duplication of preservation effort. They want to know what others have done to a particular object or work. Preservationists also have processing needs that are not available in MARC, similar to archival processing needs. They are also looking for solutions that can be implemented sooner rather than later, for practical reasons.

3. MARBI (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee)

   Cathy Gerhart and Sally McCallum reported that MARBI already feels that they are in close cooperation with CC:DA. One of the principles that they follow is to try to keep the MARC format separate from the rules, like an open container that can accommodate any changes that CC:DA comes up with. They also pointed out that MARC is used with several different cataloging codes, although it is slanted towards AACR and ISBD. They are also attuned to the fact that every change they make to the format can have a severe economic impact to the systems and institutions that have to implement it.

4. ALCTS Task Force to Define Bibliographic Access in the Electronic Environment

   Jennifer Younger reported on the progress of this Task Force. They have been examining the wide variety of efforts that are being undertaken within and outside the library community to provide access to digital resources, and have decided to focus on what the library community can contribute to this big picture. One theme of their discussions has been "what are the implications of metadata developments such as the Dublin Core on cataloging?" They feel that it is important to keep the advantages we already have in our methods of cataloging, even if changes need to be made. They are looking at AACR2 as one specific metadata scheme, and asking whether it has or should have any relationship to any other metadata scheme. The Task Force is scheduled to have completed its report by the 1997 ALA Midwinter meeting. The Task Force has a Web site with complete discussion agendas and minutes at URL:

   http://www.lib.virginia.edu/alcts/about.html

   After these reports from other groups, CC:DA discussed how best to set up a structure for ongoing interaction with these groups and with groups outside the library community. One group that already has some interaction with the non-library community is MARBI. It was decided to try to set up a joint session of CC:DA and MARBI at the next ALA meeting to discuss this further. Details of the joint meeting time and place will be forthcoming.

Lynne Howarth reported that the Task Force had completed a lengthy written report and has submitted it to IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations) for the next round of revision to the ISBD(CF). The Task Force used focus groups for feedback, and also compared the format to other manuals such as the Guidelines for Bibliographic Description on Interactive Multimedia and Nancy Olson's manual Cataloging Internet Resources. Areas that generated the most comments were the general material designation (reviewers are not happy with it, but don't know what else to use), sources of information (reviewers want to emphasize internal sources more), extent of file area (concerns about the freedom of catalogers' judgment), and the notes area (mode of access and system notes.) There also needed to be some way to treat digitized moving images, and the instructions need more examples for catalogers.

Cathy Gerhart reported as part of the effort to align USMARC with CAN/MARC (Canadian MARC). Canada has agreed to make over 50 changes and MARBI was looking at 22 proposed changes to USMARC. The target date for merging of the formats is the summer of 1997. The next goal will be alignment of this new format with UKMARC (Great Britain). The new combined format will be called IMARC.

This is a brief selection of items from Barbara Tillett's report. The Library of Congress has achieved a 42% decrease in the cataloging backlog since 1989. Their projected goal of an 80% reduction by the year 2000 is in jeopardy because of very high staff cuts and turnover. The Cataloging Distribution Service's budget was cut in half, and they will be eliminating 8 CD-ROM subscription products, but will continue publication of those items most in demand. A new edition of the Subject Cataloging Manual is in progress: it will consist of 4 volumes and have more examples, including examples in MARC format. The library has completed a draft of its guidelines for using subfield $v for form/genre subdivisions. All of the class schedules have been converted to digital form and are now being checked and indexed.

IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records

Barbara Tillett also reported on this Group. This Study Group was appointed by the Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Cataloguing to delineate in clearly defined terms the functions performed by the bibliographic record with respect to various media, applications, and user needs. The Group created a conceptual model that defines the "entities" described by a bibliographic record as intellectual entities (works and expressions) and physical entities (manifestations and items). It describes the basic elements of a bibliographic record in terms of tasks that a user performs: find, identify, select, and obtain. The complete draft report is available for world-wide review at URL:

Mary Beth Fecko presented this proposal concerning a change in the definition of the term "label" in AACR2R for chapters 6,7,8, and 9. AACR2R does not include a definition of label in its glossary but does offer two separate footnote definitions in chapters 6 (6.0B1) and 9 (9.0B1). The ALCTS AV proposal puts forth a modified footnote definition to be used in these two rules as follows: "Label means any permanently affixed paper, plastic, etc. label, or any permanently embossed or imprinted information appearing on the carrier." It also suggests wording changes to the definition of the chief source of information in rules 6.0B1, 7.0B1, 8.0B1, and 9.0B1 to reflect this expanded definition of label.

In discussion of the proposal, CC:DA members indicated general approval of the aim of the proposal--to expand the legitimate sources of information for nonprint materials--but they had some problems with the actual wording. One problem is that the proposed definition uses the term label to describe itself and also has a mysterious "etc." Another comment was that defining the term label differently for media and non-media is confusing. Others mentioned that the emphasis should not be on the definition of label, but on the definition of what constitutes the chief source for media materials. The decision was to send it back to ALCTS AV for further work in cooperation with Matthew Wise, representative from the Music Library Association, and Lynn Howarth, Chair of the ISBD(CF) Review Task Force.

Return to Table of Contents

As I reported last time, prior to the Toronto Conference in October of 1995, an AMIM revision report was submitted to the Library of Congress, survey participants, and the Committee's liaisons. On December 15, 1995, the Cataloging and Documentation Committee received a reply from Barbara Tillett and Linda Stubbs at the Library of Congress expressing their willingness to begin the revision process, with work beginning in October of 1996, and with the aim being submission of a manuscript for publication in November of 1997.

I also reported last time that in my capacity as liaison to OLAC, I described the OLAC name authority "Funnel Project," and was subsequently asked to survey our field to see if there was interest in starting a similar project. I have completed this task, with the following results:

• 42 surveys were sent out to non-members of the AMIA Cataloging and Documentation Committee. In addition, all members of the AMIA Cataloging and Documentation Committee received survey forms as part of the last mailing to the Committee.

• 5 survey forms were returned. Of these institutions, one indicated that it had applied for membership in the OLAC Funnel Project, and two did not indicate willingness to participate in NACO, probably due to lack of resources. These two institutions (Bronx Community College/City University of New York and University of Georgia Libraries) have been encouraged to join the OLAC Funnel Project.

AMIA's next annual conference will be in Atlanta, Georgia, December 3-7, 1996. If anyone is interested in joining AMIA, please contact Greg Lukow at:

Return to Table of Contents

Proposal No. 96-8: CAN/MARC Changes for MARC Format Alignment

This proposal (or set of proposals) was the major agenda item for this meeting. It arises out of efforts to align the US and Canadian MARC formats; the goal is to have a single combined format that will be used in both countries. The present proposals represent those changes that the Canadians feel need to be made to USMARC. Discussions on these proposals will continue at Midwinter. At the same time, discussions continue with the British on aligning UKMARC with USMARC; the first results of that effort should be presented for discussion at the 1997 Annual Conference.
007-02 (All): Change Field 007/02 (Original vs. Reproduction Aspect)
The proposal to make this position obsolete was approved.

008-18-19 (Music): Augment Form of Composition codes

The proposal to add values for "Ballads," "Rhapsodies," and "Square dance music" was approved.

008-23-27 (Visual Materials): Reorient Accompanying Matter Position
Because there are so many coding conflicts between the present US and Canadian definitions of this element, the option to make this position obsolete was preferred, but the final decision was postponed until Midwinter.

028-Ind 2: Eliminate added entry control from indicator
No decision was made. There was reluctance to redefine existing values and some consideration was given to making all current values obsolete and starting over with new values.

Discussion Paper No. 96: Defining a Uniform Resource Name Field in the USMARC Bibliographic Format

Members of the Internet Engineering Task Force gave an update on progress to date. The development of a URN standard is once again on track, and there may be a standard in place within a year. The major challenge will be setting up services to resolve URNs into the current resource locations (URLs). The standard is likely to accommodate all existing numbering schemes of identifying numbers (e.g., ISBN, LCCN) and any future schemes. Existing authoritative agencies will become "naming agencies" under the URN model and will be responsible for defining and assigning numbers. The library community may be faced with making choices about which of many possible URN schemes will be supported in library information systems. At this point, it is premature to make any decisions about USMARC implementation, although a preference for a record-level number tag (0XX), rather than a subfield in 856, was expressed.

It was recognized that certain functions (such as search qualification) need to take into account elements other than LDR/06. On the other hand, because of other functions (most notably, RLIN's need to sort records into format files based on LDR/06-08), the definitions and rules for using LDR/06 need to be revised. Digital items are a particular problem, and it was agreed that code "m" needed to be redefined so that it was not used for all digital items. Two options will be explored: a narrow definition, limiting value "m" to executable programs only, and a somewhat broader definition that would also include raw data. The codes for "kit" and "mixed" will also need to be examined. Finally, in order to deal with non-digital items that belong to more than one category, an order of precedence for LDR/06 codes will need to be defined. A proposal will be prepared for discussion at Midwinter. Note: At the same time, there will likely be additional revisions or application guidelines proposed for coding LDR/06 for archival materials.

• Some changes were made to the specifications for file labels for records transmitted by FTP.

• Specifications for conversion between the USMARC character sets and the UNICODE character set (and vice versa) were discussed.

• Additional fixed-length data elements for technical details of remote-sensing images were discussed.

• The word "Provisional" will be removed from the title of the Community Information Format.

News from LC:

• Update No. 2 to the Bibliographic Format is now available

• A new list of NUC codes, now titled USMARC Code List for Organizations, is available.

• LC has prepared SGML Data Type Definitions for the USMARC bibliographic formats (including holdings and community information) and authority formats. These versions are complete (they include SGML tags for all data elements) and will be kept up-to-date whenever changes to the formats are made, but should be considered "alpha" versions. They are available from Network Development & MARC Standards Office; software to translate back and forth between USMARC and SGML/MARC will be made available.

  Return to Table of Contents

  ---

  Report from MOUG
  Music OCLC Users Group
  Submitted by Richard Baumgarten
  OLAC Liaison to MOUG
  The Program Committee is busy planning the next MOUG Conference to be held January 28th and 29th, 1997. The program will include a preconference jointly sponsored by MOUG and MLA on series authority. A session of questions and answers "Ask MOUG" is also being planned. A plenary session will be "The Changing Role of OCLC." Neil Hughes, the MOUG Education Coordinator is determined to make the upcoming conference both interesting and enjoyable. [See p. 39 for more details.]

  Return to Table of Contents

  ---

  NEWS FROM OCLC
  for Online AV Catalogers
  July 6, 1996
  Submitted by Glenn Patton, OCLC
  DATABASE:
  At ALA Midwinter, OCLC launched a year-long celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Online Union Catalog. Part of that celebration is an essay contest "What the Online Union Catalog Means to Me." The winners of that contest are being honored at this Conference. Look for more of the celebration as we approach the actual anniversary in August.

  As of July 1, 1996, there were about 905,000 visual materials records, 1,089,000 sound recordings and 77,000 computer files records. We also recently passed the 600 million mark for holdings attached to bibliographic records. The implementation of format integration, phase 2, in March seems to have passed with barely a whimper, except over the size of the Technical Bulletin, the largest one we've ever produced. A new edition of Bibliographic Formats and Standards is being shipped now, along with a companion new edition of Concise Input Standards.

  DATABASE QUALITY:
  Progress continues on database scans that result from format integration, phases 1 and 2. In addition, OCLC has completed updating of series headings in the OLUC.

  ACCESS:
  PASSPORT for Windows, version 1.1 has been released.

  PRISM SERVICE:
  We hope to provide another set of PRISM Enhancements later this year. A number of possibilities are under consideration and a final list will be announced in the early fall.

  In February 1996, OCLC introduced PRISM Usage Stats, a monthly electronic statistical report. The report contains a section for Cataloging, Interlibrary Loan, OCLC Selection, and Union List and provides detailed information for each authorization number. Reports are delivered electronically via the Product Services Menu.

  In early June, we completed development on CatCD for Windows. In addition to moving the software to a Windows platform, we have introduced several new databases including a "Visual Materials and Computer Files" database on two CDs. Dewey for Windows will be released in August. Work continues on the ILL MicroEnhancer to the Windows platform (to be completed in fall 1996), with the Cataloging MicroEnhancer to follow that.

  As part of our efforts to help libraries with the Selection and Acquisition process, we've made Books in Print available for verifications and we've added records from Casalini Libri and Puvill Libros. We're also continuing to look at selection and verification tools for nonprint materials. We'd be interested in hearing from you about tools used in your libraries.

  INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES:
  OCLC continues to expand its services to international libraries with about 1200 libraries using some aspect of OCLC services. Some symbols of those activities: the Users Council elected Christine Deschamps of the University of Paris as the first member of the OCLC Board of Trustees from outside the U.S.; OCLC has opened a service center at Tsinghua University in Beijing; EUR-OP, a resource file of bibliographic records describing publications of the European Union, is now available to PRISM users; and, two projects designed to assist in identifying and resolving differences between Anglo-American cataloging practices and German and Russian cataloging practices are being underwritten by OCLC.

  INTERNET RESOURCES:
  Interest in the Internet Cataloging Project continues to be high. There are now 231 participating institutions who have created nearly 5000 records. Even though the grant funding ended as of June 30, the InterCat catalog will remain available and up-to-date. The INTERCAT listserv will also continue as a mechanism for discussing issues related to the cataloging of Internet resources. Work on a final report will begin soon. Part of the report will be revisions to the Internet cataloging guidelines. Also to be included is a survey of project coordinators.

  The papers from the InterCat Colloquium at ALA Midwinter are now available at:

  http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/colloq/toc.htm

  Records from the NetFirst database can now be searched by PRISM cataloging users so that they use information from that abstracting and indexing service as the basis for creating full bibliographic records. Watch also for an announcement about enhanced Web access to NetFirst that makes use of Dewey classification numbers and index terms to assist searchers in searching more effectively.

  Return to Table of Contents

  ---

  NEWS FROM RLIN
  for Online AV Catalogers
  July 6, 1996
  Submitted by Ed Glazier, RLG

  FORMAT INTEGRATION:
  The phase 2 changes for format integration were installed at the end of April 1996. A description of these changes is available in the RLIN SHOW CHANGES display and also at the RLG Web site:

  http://www.rlg.org/fi.html

  RLIN TERMINAL FOR WINDOWS:
  Version 2 permitting display of CJK characters was available earlier in 1996 and Version 3.0, allowing input of East Asian scripts was made available before ALA. This version allows at least multiple input methods each for Chinese (3, including both Wade-Giles and Pinyin romanization), Japanese (5) and Korean (4). As before, this software is available free over the Internet. Version 4.0 permitting input of the remaining non-Roman scripts--Cyrillic, Arabic, and Hebrew--should be generally available by the end of the summer.

  NETWORK TRANSITION:
  The change from dedicated lines to other forms of connection--Internet, Compuserve dialup, etc.--has almost been completed.

  NEW CITADEL FILES:
  A number of new files will have just become or will soon be available through CitaDel, RLG's citation and document delivery service.

  Two new files, both produced by the Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique (INIST) are now available. FRANCIS contains more than one million records from 1964 to date, covering disciplines in humanities, social sciences, and economics. PASCAL contains more than three million records from 1991 to date, covering major French and international research in science, health, sciences, biology, applied sciences, physics, chemistry, and engineering.

  INSIDE INFORMATION, a citation file from the British Library Document Supply Centre, will be enhanced with some additional descriptive information, and by increasing the number of journals indexed from 10,000 to 21,000. Recognizing the increased value of this file, it will now be known as INSIDE INFORMATION PLUS.

  Later this year, the Bibliography of the History of Art from the Getty Information Institute will become available as an additional CitaDel file.

  VENDOR RECORDS:
  Bibliographic records supplied by vendors Casalini (Italian), Puvill (Spanish), and the Yiddish Book Center (Yiddish) will be found in RLIN files. These records can be used as the basis for acquisitions records to order materials directly from the vendors or merely to verify bibliographic citations. The Casalini and Puvill records are batch loaded. The Yiddish Book Center will be creating records directly online in RLIN. Negotiations with other vendors are already in progress.

  BLACKWELL DATA:
  Contracts have been signed with Blackwell North America (BNA) to load two new kinds of data into RLIN. Blackwell will be supplying enhanced CIP records, often available before the Library of Congress has updated its own CIP records. In addition, a new file consisting of BNA's Table of Contents records will be supplied. The BNA Table of Contents file currently includes 115,000 records for English-language titles published since April 1992 and distributed by BNA and BHB; about 35,000 table of contents records are created annually, or an average of 3,000 records per month. An announcement will be made when this data is available to users.

  DIOGENES:
  Diogenes, an automated cataloging service, jointly developed by RLG and Retro Link Associates, became available earlier this year. Through this service, a user submits a file of brief records, which are automatically searched in the RLIN bibliographic database. Matching fuller records and reports of nonmatches are returned by FTP. Through one or more individual profiles, users are able to specify certain desired or undesired characteristics, such as the presence or absence of non-Roman data, subject headings and call numbers, and cataloging from particular institutions. Diogenes is available to all institutions whether or not they use RLIN for cataloging or their records are in the RLIN database.

  ARIEL ENHANCEMENTS:
  A number of enhancements are in the works for Ariel, RLG's Internet document transmission system. These enhancements are being done on behalf of the Joint Electronic Document Delivery Software (JEDDS) partnership, consisting of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, the National Library of Australia, the National Library of New Zealand, and the United Kingdom's Joint Information Systems Committee, Electronic Libraries Programme, but will be available to all world-wide users of Ariel. The first stage will implement the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME), enabling workstations running Ariel to deliver documents to each other via e-mail as well as FTP. Stage two will enable Ariel to communicate with interlending and document management systems using a subset of the International Organization for Standardization's Interlibrary Loan protocol (ISO 10160 and 10161). Stage three will provide document delivery by e-mail to the desktops of end users, who will be able to receive, view, and print documents on a variety of platforms, provided they have an e-mail service that is MIME compliant.

  For more information about any of the topics in this report, please send e-mail to bl.sal@rlg.stanford.edu. Information is also available at RLG's home page on the World Wide Web at:

  http://www.rlg.org/welcome.html
  Return to Table of Contents

  ---

  NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
  Barbara Vaughan, Column Editor

  MOUG to Meet in New Orleans

  Mark your calendars! The Music OCLC Users Group will meet in New Orleans at the Hotel Inter-Continental, Tuesday, January 28th and Wednesday, January 29th, 1997. The final program still awaits MOUG Board approval, but the Program Committee is hard at work pulling together a varied program, with emphasis on the practical and the nitty-gritty. A closing plenary session entitled "The Changing Role of OCLC," designed to bring catalogers and public service librarians together at the end of the meeting and covering the history of OCLC, its current activities, and where the organization sees itself headed in the future, is proposed, as is an "Ask MOUG" session. If the "Ask MOUG" session is approved, there will be a space on the registration form where you may submit advance questions to the panel of luminaries, or you may surprise them with your questions at the session--the choice is yours.

  MOUG's Program Committee and MLA's Education Committee are also pursuing a jointly-sponsored workshop on series authority, probably to be offered as a half-day session late on Tuesday afternoon and early evening. The focus will be on how to do series authority work to national standards in the local environment, rather than on NACO per se--in other words, you do not have to be a NACO participant or even at a NACO library to benefit from participation. This proposed session will have a separate registration and fee from the MOUG meeting-proper.

  Registration materials for the series authority workshop and the MOUG meeting will be available in late fall, 1996 from:

  Neil Hughes / MOUG Continuing Education Coordinator / Cataloging Department / University of Georgia Libraries / Athens, GA 30602-1641 / phone: 706-542-1554 / e-mail: nhughes@libris.libs.uga.edu

  Return to Table of Contents

  ---

  Map and Weather Info for 1996 OLAC Conference Attendees

  A good map of Denton can be found at URL:
  

  http://www.tsgs.unt.edu/denton.htm

  Weather information at Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) airport and information about Denton and the universities in town:

  http://www.co.denton.tx.us/
  Return to Table of Contents

  ---

  Interactive Multimedia Cataloging Institute
  Friday, Nov. 1, 1996
  Holy Cross College, Worcester, Mass.

  Presented by the Cataloging and Classification Section of ALCTS and cosponsored by NELINET.

  The ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section and NELINET present an institute on Interactive Multimedia Cataloging & the Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia.

  Goals and Objectives

  This institute will provide guidance and training in applying the 1994 ALA Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia through both a general review of the Guidelines and hands-on instruction in their use. In addition, some of the latest examples of commercially available interactive multimedia titles will be demonstrated by creators and producers from the industry.

  Instruction will focus on skill-building in identifying, describing, classifying, and supplying subject and keyword access for interactive multimedia titles. Participants will work from surrogate packets providing chief-source information to create actual catalog records. These examples will reflect the current state of interactive multimedia publishing and will update some of the examples in the Guidelines. Small group sessions will provide opportunities for individualized assistance and discussion. Specific issues pertaining to specialized areas (music, law, etc.) will be reviewed.

  The institute will enable catalogers to understand the overlapping concepts as well as the differences found in the Guidelines instructions compared to current AACR2R rules for computer files, videos, etc. The instructors will address future issues regarding the Guidelines and will actively encourage comments on them from the institute participants.

  Audience
  Catalog librarians, copy catalogers, cataloging instructors (including trainers in library catalog departments, faculty from graduate schools of library and information science, and trainers from network/consortium offices, etc.) as well as cataloging administrators involved in the creation of interactive multimedia. Representatives from academic, public, school, and specialized libraries (medicine, law, music, etc.) will also find this institute relevant. Bring your copy of the Guidelines to derive the most benefit from the institute. An order form will be included in your registration confirmation.

  Faculty
  Ann Sandberg-Fox, Cataloging Consultant and Trainer; Laurel Jizba, Principal Cataloger and Trainer, Michigan State University Libraries; Bonnie Dede, Head, Special Formats Cataloging, University of Michigan.

  Multimedia Presenter: Elaine Anderson, Apple Computer.

  Moderator: Johanne LaGrange, Serials Librarian, Columbia University.

  Conference Site and Housing

  The institute will be held at Holy Cross College, Worcester, Mass., about 50 miles west of Boston. Several airlines fly direct to Worcester and there is bus service from Logan Airport in Boston. Directions to the college will be included with your registration confirmation. Local hotels, with approximate nightly single rates and phone numbers, include: Worcester Crowne Plaza ($120/508-791-1600 or 800-628-4240); Days Inn ($55/508-832-8300); Hampton Inn ($90/508-757-0400); and Clarion Suites Hotel ($75/508-753-3512)

  Fees and Registration
  Registration fees are $165 for ALCTS members, $215 for ALA members, and $265 for non-members. To register, complete the registration form on p. 43-44 and mail it with payment, purchase order, or credit card information to the ALCTS office. The completed form may also be faxed (with purchase order or credit card payment information only). Telephone registrations are also accepted.

  NOTE: If you are using your NELINET deposit account, send the completed form to Kenna Juliani, NELINET, Two Executive Park, Newton, Mass. 02162.

  Registrations will be accepted in order of receipt for up to the maximum of 80 people, and must be received, faxed, or telephoned by October 15, 1996. Cancellations will be accepted only until October 15, 1996 (subject to a $25 processing fee). ALCTS reserves the right to cancel the program if there is insufficient registration or for other reasons. Refunds will be processed after November 1, 1996. Neither ALA, ALCTS, nor NELINET is responsible for cancellation charges assessed by airlines or travel agencies, or other losses incurred due to cancellation of the program.

  ---

  Tentative Program Outline

  8:45-10:30
  

  The Realm of Interactive Multimedia: Session I
  
  --Welcome and Demonstrations

  10:30-10:45 Break

  10:45-12:00
  

  Keys to the Realm: Session II
  
  --Cataloging Overview

  12:00-1:00 Luncheon (hosted)

  1:00-2:15
  

  Knowledge of the Inner Sanctum: Session III
  
  --Review and Group Cataloging

  2:15-2:30 Break

  2:30-3:30
  

  Knowledge of the Inner Sanctum: Session IV
  
  --Individual Cataloging

  3:30-4:15
  

  Denouement--Leaving the Realm: Session V
  
  --Highlights, Future of the Guidelines, Evaluations

  ---

  Registration Form

  Association for Library Collections & Technical Services
  Interactive Multimedia Cataloging (4500)
  November 1, 1996
  Holy Cross College
  Worcester, Mass.

  You may register by phone, fax, e-mail, or mail. This brochure and registration form are also available on the ALA Web page:

  http://www.ala.org/
  
  (follow the path: The Organization/ALA Divisions/ALCTS/ALCTS Gopher/ALCTS Institutes).

  Mail: Complete p. 43-44 and mail it with payment to:

  Interactive Multimedia Cataloging
  ALCTS/ALA
  50 E. Huron St.
  Chicago, IL 60611.

  Fax: Complete p. 43-44 and fax with payment information to 312-280-3257.

  Phone: Call LaTisha Reynolds at 800-545-2433, extension 5035.

  E-Mail: Send registration information to LaTisha Reynolds at:

  lreynolds@ala.org
  (credit card or purchase order only).

  NOTE: If you are using your NELINET deposit account, send the completed form to:

  Kenna Juliani
  NELINET
  Two Executive Park
  Newton, Mass. 02162

  Check, money order, purchase order, or credit card charge must accompany registration to reserve space at the institute.

  ************

  If you join ALA/ALCTS now you can register for the institute at the member rate!

  Membership registration:

  __ Add ALCTS to my ALA membership (ALA number) $45
  __ First time membership in ALA ($43) and ALCTS ($45) $88
  __ Regular renewing membership in ALA ($85) and ALCTS ($45) $130

  ************

  Please reserve my space for the Interactive Multimedia Cataloging Institute.

  __ Check or Money Order
  __ Purchase Order
  __ VISA
  __ Master Card
  __ American Express
  __ NELINET Deposit Account

  Card number

  Expiration date

  Signature (required for all charges)

  __ALA/ALCTS/NELINET Personal Member$165
  __ALA Personal Member$215
  __Non-ALA Member$265

  (Staff of organizational members are not considered personal members.)

  Name:
  (as it should appear on badge)

  Title:

  Organization Name:
  (as it should appear on badge)

  Organization address:

  Preferred mailing address:

  Telephone:

  _____________ (Office)
  
  _____________ (Home)

  E-Mail:

  ALA Membership Number:

  I require a
  

  ___ vegetarian
  
  ___ kosher
  
  ___ other luncheon

Return to Table of Contents

QUESTION: What do the letters "SR" stand for on an audiocassette? Stereo? Sound recording? Are they part of the publisher's number?

ANSWER: On one of the cassette labels you offered in evidence, the "SR" was quite removed from the obvious sequence of the publisher number. On the other label, it was below the publisher number and, from its typography and position, seemed more connected to the Dolby "double-D" symbol. I found in my long buried files a similar example that someone had asked about a few years ago. All three cassettes involved a Warner conglomerate label (Atlantic, Reprise, and Warner Brothers). All three had the same Dolby symbol in a different place on the label. The example from my file had two photocopies of what appears to be the same recording, one showing "SR" and one showing "AR" so that seems to rule out the "SR" standing for stereo. Because of the erratic placement, I am also reluctant to consider it part of the music publisher number. I suspect that it is some sort of Warner code having to do with pricing or distribution or pressings (for radio stations versus general consumption?? Who knows!!). My inclination and advice is to ignore it. ---Jay Weitz OCLC

QUESTION: Is "Digalog" on audiocassettes another way of saying that it is a digital recording? Can I put a "d" in $n of the 007?

ANSWER: The "digalog" designation, judging from the little blurb that accompanies the logo on the accompanying insert, seems to be marketing hype for a "new cassette manufacturing process [that] links state of the art digital mastering and duplication directly to the finished analog cassette." If this is accurate, it says nothing directly about how the sound was originally captured (the basis for 007 $n coding), only about the mastering and duplication. Unless there is other evidence elsewhere on the item, we know nothing about the original capture and storage. Strictly speaking, 007 $n should be "u" for unknown in this case. Nowadays, however, unless there is specific evidence to the contrary (a SPARS code, something that says "analog recording" or something to that effect, a pre-digital era recording date, etc.) most recently captured recordings tend to be digitally captured and stored. Given that, code 007 $n according to how daring you are!!! ---Jay Weitz OCLC

QUESTION: What do you do with an executive producer from a videorecording? The LCRIs don't mention them in either the directions for statement of responsibility or the notes area. Are they ignored even if they are someone famous like Steven Spielberg?

ANSWER: Usually the hands-on producer and director are considered to be of more interest to potential users of a catalog record than the executive producer and director. This is an attempt to limit in some reasonable way the number of names routinely included in a catalog record. If access to executive producer or director would be of interest, the name can be added either place. The LCRIs are intended to help guide decisions for day to day working. Individual catalogers should catalog to meet the needs of their patrons and organization. ---VU

QUESTION: A colleague recently attended a workshop on the MARC AV format (clearly a misnomer since format integration but still useful for meaning!!). She was amazed to hear at this workshop that when one is cataloging an art reproduction, one should actually be cataloging the original art work, then point out in a 533 that what you have is a reproduction. Back home, the rest of the AV catalogers were equally amazed. Microforms are cataloged this way, in defiance of AACR2R, but I never heard of AV art reproductions being done this way. It also sounds wildly impractical. If you have a poster depicting the Lord's Supper, must one describe the original fresco in Italy? Or, the photograph of the mural from the which the poster was made? Even if that were so, in most cases one has no information about the original. Have you ever heard of this?

ANSWER: I remember hearing rumors of this approach to cataloging art reproductions when AACR2 first came out, but I think it died a quick death, abandoned as completely impractical. Looking at OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards 3.2, p. 31 (Reproductions and original microform publications) it states pretty clearly that LC (and therefore OCLC) will follow AACR1 for "descriptions of microform and on demand photocopy reproductions of previously existing materials."

Chapter 8 of AACR2R includes art originals and art reproductions in its scope (8.0A1) and has several examples especially under physical description where art reproductions are treated quite "normally." 8.7B22 gives instruction to give a note about the original of a reproduction work of art. And, I think you would do that in the course of cataloging if the information were at hand. But, I wouldn't add gray to my hair over it.

My advice is to contact directly the person giving the workshop and find out exactly what was said and what the justification might be. If the instructor is correct then there needs to be a major broadcast of the information. As far as I know, art reproductions are just like any other published graphic item and should be described as an entity to itself. As Nancy Olson is fond of saying: "Catalog what you have in your hand." ---VU

QUESTION: Those of us who are cataloging AV at my library have noticed a note that has been appearing on cataloging records with increasing frequency. It is a statement that appears in the credits of many feature films: "This film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your TV."

I understand that it would not be incorrect to give this as a quoted noted, but is it something that should be added to new records? Is this something that will be helpful to patrons?

ANSWER: What this note acknowledges is what usually happens to feature films transcribed for video format (so called "pan and scan"). We consumers are happily ignorant of the fact that certain material is cropped out to get the central events on our little 19 inch television screens. I don't think the note should be required, but it does seem helpful to me. Its absence or presence should not cause a bib record to not be used for cataloging--and certainly is not a reason for a new bib record to be input. ---VU

QUESTION: I heard recently that the 546 is the appropriate place to put the "closed-captioned" or "audio-enhanced" note. I have not seen anything in print. Can you confirm the correctness of this coding?

ANSWER: I have been using the 546 for these notes for some time now. Glenn Patton and Jay Weitz advise that the second revision packet for AACR2R will include a modification of the text and examples of 7.7B2 to include "closed-captioned" and similar notes. Glenn says: "A rule revision proposal ... has been accepted by the JSC. Now, of course, it hasn't been published and thus isn't official, but I'd certainly take that as 'authority' for considering them to be language notes and thus using the 546." (--email GP to VU 1/95) ---VU

NOTE: The next question and answer appeared in our December 1995 OLAC Newsletter and elicited some interesting comments from an OLAC Newsletter reader. I have edited the comments to shorten. The original Q&A is included for your convenience. --VU

QUESTION: We have a professor who would like us to add a note with the public performance rights and closed circuit television rights to all video records. We have never done this before and I've been unable to find examples so far. It looks as if the 540 would be ideal for it. Have you done this, or, do you know of examples on OCLC?

ANSWER: I think the 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note) would be appropriate to use. Whether you use the 540 or a plain 500 depends on your local system and what you can get back out of it.

I am not entirely sure why a professor would want this information. It sounds like a terrific amount of work if he wants it on all video records. I think I would want a convincing justification before investing that amount of work. I am not entirely sure what the legal implications of adding something like that to the cataloging record might be either. ---VU
An OLAC member comments:

We catalog large numbers of videos and have several staff involved in getting licensing, copyright, and rebroadcast clearances from publishers of videos (software, too). For videos, there are three kinds of rebroadcast rights we often are able to obtain: public performance, closed-circuit television, and non-commercial cable performance. Every time we get one or more of these kinds of permission, a note goes in the bib record. We use the terminology "Approved for public performance," "CCTV," and "Approved for non-commercial cable performance."

HOWEVER, these notes mean that my library has a written agreement IN HAND--a file is kept--from the publisher specifically granting MY library and MY library ONLY these rights. We always use a 590 tag for the note to be as clear as possible that the permission is locally held, not universally applicable. Let me restate to be perfectly clear: It is my understanding that rebroadcast rights are granted institution by institution, and to be legal, are backed up by a written licensing agreement which the library should be able to produce upon request for as long as they own the video.

VU comments on the above: Take warning!! If you are going to use your videos in this way, you need to get permission for your library to do so and include the information as a local note only in the bibliographic record. (I still don't know where most libraries would get the staff to do the work getting the grants of permission. Just getting permission to transfer 3/4 inch videos to 1/2 inch VHS is a tremendous job!!!) Thanks for sharing your insights. ---VU

Return to Table of Contents
Top

Last modified: June 23, 2004
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/newsletters/sept96.html
HTML version created by OLAC Web Manager
Return to OLAC Newsletter index