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

OLAC CATALOGER'S JUDGMENT
Jay Weitz


Describing Microcassette Audio Tapes

Question: An uncommon tape size was chosen to record one of the interviews in an oral history project being cataloged at our institution. In creating a record for that interview, a physical description for the cassette--a Sony MC-90 microcassette tape-- is needed. While the literature has numerous rules, references and specifications for "standard" cassettes, there does not appear to be any guidance specific to microcassettes. The manufacturer lists the tape speed as 2.4 cm./ second. Is this acceptable for the 300 field subfield $c, or is there a more preferred entry? Any ideas?

Answer: For the most part, it is a simple case of walking through AACR2 Rule 6.5. According to that, the microcassette would be described as "1 sound cassette" and include a total duration, if there is one. It is an "analog" recording and, as noted, the speed was 2.4 centimeters per second. Rule 6.5C3 specifies that the speed of an analog tape should be in inches per second; so, if my conversion (and my memory of such speeds) is correct, that translates to "15/16 ips ". Most of those microcassettes are two-track, and Rule 6.5C6 indicates that this information be included. If it can be determined that the recording is monophonic, include the designation "mono. ". Microcassettes measure 1 7/8 X 1 1/4 in., so those would be the dimensions. Again if memory serves, the tape width is 1/8 in., but since that is the analog tape standard, it could be omitted, according to Rule 6.5D5. The resulting 300 field would look something like this:
300 1 sound cassette (XX min. ) : $b analog, 15/16 ips, 2 track, mono. ; $c 1 7/8 x 1 1/4 in.
Include a 538 field that describes the tape as " Microcassette ". Field 007 (in OCLC terms) would be coded as follows:
007 s $b s $d k $e m $f n $g z $h l $ i b $n e
Should any of the archival or special values be known or desired for inclusion in field 007 subfields $j through $m, this may be done as well.


Describing Mini-CDs

Question: For a mini compact disc accompanying a book, the 300 in the contributed copy describes it as 3 1/2 in. and it is coded in the 007 as 3 in. (there is no other option). In reality, the mini CD is 3 1/4 in. (even a little less than that). Is there a standardized way of describing this?

Answer: It is not clear from the question if this was a mini-audio CD or a mini-CD-ROM, so I will cover both in my response. In either case, they seem to be referred to as "8 cm." discs in the literature. I do not recall ever seeing a standardized physical description for such discs, but I would think that 3 1/4 or 3 1/8 in. would be close enough. Describe it in field 538 using the terminology by which it describes itself. The 007 field is coded according to the characteristics of an audio CD or a CD-ROM. If it is an audio CD, the Sound Recording 007/06 (subfield $g) would be coded "z" for other (the value "a" for "3 in." is, I believe, usually for open reel tapes of that size). If it is a CD-ROM, the Electronic Resource 007/04 (subfield $e) would be coded "z" for other (the value "a" for "3 1/2 in." is usually for the now-standard 3 1/2 inch square floppy disc).



Non-Sound Recordings with "p" Dates?

Question: I keep finding OCLC records for colored anatomical models (with no sound recordings involved) that use a "p" date in the 260 subfield $c. As one example of this situation: the date that the model was painted is given as 2004 on the piece itself and the accompanying materials have a copyright date of 2003; these records show:
260 … $c p2004, c2003.
Is the "p" date valid for formats other than sound recordings?

Answer: According to LCRI 1.4F5, a date preceded by a lowercase "p" is a "phonogram copyright date". The U.S. Copyright Office's "Copyright Basics" document <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html> seems to suggest, in the section on "Form of Notice for Phonorecords of Sound Recordings", that the only legitimate use of the letter "p" in a circle copyright symbol is on a sound recording. That is not to say that publishers have not misused the "p" symbol (or for that matter, that catalogers have not misinterpreted other sorts of dates).


Coding for Printouts

Question: Our library has received several printouts of Web documents to catalog, most of which are prints of PDF files. Our catalogers have worked out the correct cataloging record construction, but two aspects still need your advice. Is the correct code for the fixed field element Form "s" (because the original, which is electronic, is being cataloged) or "r" (because the record is for a reproduction)? Our guess is "s" because the 539 subfield $g would be coded "r". As a related issue, just to confirm, would the 856 indicators be coded 40 or 41 ("0" for the original or "1" for the reproduction)? Our idea is "1" since it is a record for the reproduction; however, with the form coded "s", perhaps the indicator should be "0"?

Answer: Because a regular print reproduction is being cataloged, the fixed field "Form" (as well as field 539 subfield $g) would be coded "r". Note that in Bibliographic Formats and Standards Section 3.2, "Reproductions and Original Microform Publications" (p. 31 in print; <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/specialcataloging/default.shtm#CHDCIDAF> on the Web) it says "Code the fixed-field element Form for the type of reproduction described in field 533". In field 856, the second indicator should be "1", as the URL is for a different (that is, the electronic) version of the resource that is being cataloged as a printout.


Metric and Non-Metric Measures in AACR2

Question: Why are books described using centimeters in 300 subfield $c, while for AV materials, inches are used? For instance, there are two records online for "Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Rodgers and Hart Song Book". One record uses the description "4 3/4 in." while the other uses the description "12 cm.". Has there been a decision or statement issued recently regarding which terminology should be used in the 300 subfield $c? The idea of using centimeters would seem to be more appropriate, since most of the rest of the world uses that term.

Answer: In AACR2, the varying uses of metric and non-metric measures are (inadequately) explained in Rule 0.28:
"Not all measurements prescribed in Part I for library materials are metric. They are the normal measurements used at this time in libraries in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Where no predominant system of measurement exists, metric measurements have been used. Substitute metric measurements for nonmetric measurements when: either a) in the course of time a metric measurement becomes the normal measurement for the materials in question, or b) the rules are being used in a country where only metric measurements are used."
Although it does not say so in as many words, between the lines one might sense some frustration that, were it not for the United States, catalogers would be measuring everything in metric. United States practice is all over the map, so to speak, since most sound recordings and videodiscs are measured in inches, while books, scores, microforms, and three-dimensional artifacts are measured in centimeters, and motion picture film is measured in millimeters. As indicated by the variations in the rule stated above, it is always useful to note where a record has originated. For instance, a record could be from Canada where, in the Canadian version of the Rule Interpretations (available on Cataloger's Desktop), RI 1.5 says, in part: "As allowed in Rule 0.28, Library and Archives Canada uses metric measurements in recording the extent of item, other physical details and dimensions data of the item described". Its version of RI 7.5 adds : "As mentioned at 1.5, metric measurement and writing are used in the description". As far as United States catalogers are concerned, CDs are still measured in inches.


"Audio Enhanced" Videos

Question: What is the difference between closed-captioning and subtitles? Do you need a special machine to show closed-captioning? What about descriptive videos?

Answer: Please allow me to refer you to a related question and answer that explains the differences between closed captioning and subtitles, which appeared in the OLAC Newsletter 25:1 (March 2005) p. 45-46 <http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/mar05/qanda.html> under the catchy heading of "Captioning and Subtitling".

In contrast to closed captioning, which was originally intended as assistance to the hearing impaired, "described" or "audio enhanced" videos are intended to help the visually impaired. Perhaps the most common "described" videos are those created by Descriptive Video Services (DVS). DVS is a specific service that (with permission) reissues special editions of videos with scenery, action, and other visual elements verbally described. In my experience, these videos have not required special equipment for the added descriptions to be heard, although it is possible that there might be some sorts of "closed" audio enhanced videos where the extra audio descriptions can be heard only with special equipment. Again, although I have neither seen nor heard that such videos exist, it is also entirely possible that in the world of DVDs, there could be discs that include audio description as a menu option. If anyone has seen or heard of either of these theoretical possibilities in the real world, it would be interesting to hear about them.


Relator Terms in Added Entries

Question: In some of the cataloging copy found for recorded books, the name entry is followed by subfield $e, using either "performer" or "narrator" as the relator term. The problem is that the difference between performer and narrator could result in the same person being listed twice. Is one designation better than the other?

Answer: As the rules currently stand, AACR2 proper allows the optional use of relator terms (officially, "Designations of function") in only four cases according to 21.0D1: compiler (comp.), editor (ed.), illustrator (ill.), and translator (tr.), with occasional other terms that may be called for in specific rules. It also allows other terms derived from standard lists in specialist and archival cataloging. LCRI 21.0D1 further restricts the use of these abbreviations to "ill." alone, for illustrators of children's materials. So in general, unless cataloging children's materials, neither subfield $e nor these terms should be used in headings. Please note that these relator terms should not be confused with additions to personal name headings that serve as points of differentiation (such as terms of honor, terms of address, designations of sainthood or royalty, etc.), as are called for in Rules 22.12 through 22.16 and elsewhere (and which usually go in subfield $c). On the other hand, relator codes (subfield $4) may optionally be used wherever appropriate. If a local system cannot use them to differentiate the different roles of a particular individual (for instance, Leonard Bernstein as composer [$4 cmp] versus pianist [$4 prf or $4 itr] versus conductor [$4 cnd] versus speaker [$4 spk]), one should not feel obligated to create them. Subfield $4 is repeatable, so one could theoretically use both $4 prf for performer and $4 nrt for narrator, if a preference cannot be decided. If using relator codes, it usually makes sense to have the code correspond to the descriptor associated with the person's name in the 511 field, if appropriate.


Punctuation in Field 538


Question: There are many 538 fields of records online for DVDs in which the punctuation seems incorrect. This judgment is based on the sample (given below) from OLAC's DVD Primer . Can you please set the record straight? Below are two types of (incorrect?) examples found online, followed by one interpretation of how it should be, based on the DVD Primer , then the actual example from the Primer :

Example of combination punctuation:

        538     DVD, region 1; Dolby Digital.

Example using commas as separators:

        538     DVD, Region 1, stereo.

Interpretation of a 538, using the DVD Primer .

        538     DVD; English and French, stereo; Spanish, mono; 2.35:1 aspect ratio; Region 1.

DVD Primer example:

        538     System requirements: IBM PC or compatible ; Pentium 100 processor or better ; Windows 95 or higher ; 16 MB RAM or better ; 20 MB hard disk space ; MPEG-2 decoder.

Which is correct?

Answer: AACR2 offers precious little guidance on the issue of punctuation in this sort of note, and catalogers have to search around from Rules 7.7A and 7.7B10 to 1.7A and 1.0C (and respective LCRIs ), none of which offer any help. In the spirit of Rule 0.23 ("Use the chapters in Part I alone or in combination as the specific problem demands"), one can find a tiny bit of what might be called "parallel assistance" in 9.7B1b. In discussing the various characteristics of system requirements, it says, "Precede each characteristic, other than the first, by a semicolon". The 538 field examples that appear in OLAC's DVD Primer (both for DVD videos and DVD-ROMs) are pretty consistent in following this "semicolon-space" practice (rather than the "space-semicolon-space" ISBD punctuation of your final example). Of course, one of the problems with this is in the interpretation of what "each characteristic" might actually be. If being strict, it would make sense to have a semicolon at every logical division:

        538     DVD; region 1; Dolby Digital.

But one could also argue that some of these "characteristics" have porous borders and could be grouped together by commas, with only clear divisions separated by semicolons. Aesthetics and readability should also enter into consideration. All around, I would lean toward a generous sprinkling of semicolons, restricting the use of commas to grammatical separations within a characteristic, as in your third example.


Putting the Cartridge Before the Frog: Sound Cartridges

Question: I am cataloging several dozen LeapPad and Quantum Pad kits from the publisher LeapFrog, which consist of a computer chip cartridge and a book. For the benefit of those who have never seen one of these, here is a description of how these work. The cartridge plugs into a special player, and the book, when open, lays in an indentation on the unit. When the unit is then turned on, the reader hears the text of the book, which pauses after each page for the user to either touch a stylus to the page-turn button, or to other buttons on the page that trigger special aural activities (such as touching a word to hear the definition of that word, touching a planet to hear the planet's name, and so forth). It should be noted that there is nothing electronic about the book itself; a magnet or something similar in the tip of the stylus triggers a sensor in the unit underneath the indicated spot in the book; the programming for which sensors are active on a given "page" and what sound is played when that happens is all contained on the cartridge. Some of the base units also include a microphone for voice-recognition for language teaching and an electronic writing pad for letter-recognition, but none of the kits currently in hand utilize those capabilities.

It seems that the primary content of these is clearly the sound recording (though, like read-along book + cassette/CD kits, one could also judge the book to be the primary content); the primary carrier is clearly electronic resource. From reading OCLC's "Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines", LC's "Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources", Concise MARC21, and AACR2R-2004, it appears that these should be cataloged in the following manner:
In searching OCLC, however, almost every record found has been cataloged either as Type "a" (assuming the book is the primary aspect) or Type "i" with a GMD of "[sound recording]" and a physical description that does not seem to follow AACR2R's prescribed lists of SMDs in either Chapter 6 or 9. No records can be found that follow the conclusions I made (and these were all cataloged after the MARC21 narrowing of the definition of Type "m"). Also, most of the Type "i" records have the speed in the Sound Recording 007 coded for "sound cartridges", which is defined as something that has a tape inside (like an 8-track cartridge), not a computer chip cartridge. Are some or all of my conclusions wrong, or should I start submitting a lot of error reports to OCLC (or find a friend with an Enhance authorization) to get the Type "i" records corrected? (I already know I will be doing original cataloging for those titles with a Type "a" record for which there is not yet a Type "i" record.)

Answer: From your description of these kits, it sounds as though your treatment of them is right on the mark (and the MARC). Here is my guess about why so many similar kits have been incorrectly cataloged. The structural legacies of both AACR and MARC 21 carry on the divisions among the various types of resources (book, sound recording, visual material, etc.) that have increasingly broken down, especially in this age of electronic resources. Both the cataloging rules and the bibliographic format have struggled to keep up with changing technologies and with the more permeable walls between those different types of resources, but with only limited success (the narrowing of the definition of Type "m", the implementation of fields 006, etc.). Your question is an object lesson in why the cataloging rules are currently being revamped in a manner that we can all hope will deal with some of these problems.

As suggested, the SMD "sound cartridge" (from AACR2 6.5B1) was intended to describe sound tape cartridges (such as the legendary 8-tracks). In going through AACR2, though, one finds that this limitation to tape cartridge is strongly implied (in 6.0A1, 6.0B1, 6.5C6, 6.5D4) but never quite stated directly or conclusively. So it is no great leap (of Pad, Frog, or logic) to think that the AACR2 SMD "sound cartridge" could include computer cartridges intended to convey sound. An honest mistake. Catalogers need to refer to MARC 21 (the Sound Recording 007/01 [subfield $b] code "g" for "sound cartridge") to find the definition limiting the term to "a container holding a single sound tape, run as an endless loop".

Let this be a reminder to all about the dangers of cataloging by example. The mere existence of many records reflecting a certain cataloging practice is no guarantee that the practice is correct. Many of those records (accessed in OCLC by a publisher search on " LeapFrog ") happen to be Encoding Level "K", making them eligible for a Minimal-Level Upgrade by Full-Level OCLC users. Please report others that cannot be locked and replaced (including any that need Type Code changes) to OCLC via any of the usual means.


Webliography/Bibliography

Question: Can you cite an LC Rule Interpretation or AACR2R rule with an example of a Webliography note? Are Web sites contained in books considered to be bibliographies?

Answer: LCRI 2.7B18, concerning Contents Notes in general, does not refer specifically to the term "Webliography ", but I believe that such creatures can be considered to be subsumed under the term "bibliography". In its "Informal Contents Note" section, the RI says that catalogers should routinely consider "bibliographies and bibliographical references, discographies, and filmographies (except for any that are obviously of little value), and indexes" to be worthy of a note. The RI goes on, in its "Bibliography Note" section to say, "With respect to bibliographic citations and bibliographies, interpret the phrase ‘bibliographical references' to include all kinds of resources, including electronic resources; do not give any special treatment to, or provide special mention of, the latter". I take this to mean that catalogers would treat Webliographies exactly as any other sort of bibliography, and that if a bibliography includes electronic resources, no special mention need be made of that fact. So, if it calls itself " Webliography ", simply use that term in the 504 note (as you would for "Filmography" or "Discography"), as such:

        504     Webliography: p. 290-299.

Should the Webliography have its own specialized title worth noting, quote that title, follow it by a colon, then the page numbers, as usual (and as is shown earlier in the RI). In this context, a " Webliography " would be a list of hyperlinks or other references to online electronic resources. The term is occasionally used more narrowly to denote a bibliography found on the Web.


Cataloging Streaming Videos

Question: Our library in the process of constructing its first streaming video record. We would appreciate any examples of records or information on the 006, 007s, 538s, and any other suggestions or information that might help us in this endeavor.

Answer: My " Videorecording Cataloging Workshop" PowerPoint presentation (including the section on streaming media with a full-record example, slides 62-65) is available on the OLAC Website at: <http://www.olacinc.org/conferences/2004/weitz.ppt>. One small detail that has changed in the intervening period is that field 300 may now be used for remote resources. Here are my current recommendations for cataloging streaming videos, with elements to be included or considered.

Region "Zero" DVDs

Question: A DVD currently in hand has a symbol on its container with a "0" embedded inside a globe. Does this mean the DVD is not restricted to any region? If so, would a note be put in the 538 field indicating that it is "playable in all regions"? What wording would you recommend?

Answer: Technically speaking, there are no "zero" region DVDs. (There is a map and listing of the eight defined regions at: <http://www.sendit.com/help/help_dvd_regions>.) What the "zero" indicates is an all region disc. The note you suggest seems like a wise idea.

Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section

Last updated: November 21, 2005
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/septdec05/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu