|About OLAC | Committees & Projects | Events | Publications | Contact Us | Join OLAC | Photo Gallery|
The OLAC Newsletter (ISSN: 0739-1153) is a quarterly publication of the Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc. appearing in March, June, September and December. Permission is granted to copy and disseminate information contained herein, provided the source is acknowledged.
In this issue
News and Announcements:
OLAC Cataloger's Judgment:
OLAC Cataloger's Judgement: Questions and Answers
Question: I am seeing different sorts of things in the 300 tag for materials that exist on the Internet. One example is:
300 1 online resource (78 p.)
Is that doable?
Answer: For better or worse, the options that AACR2 now makes available for a "physical" description of remote access resources under 9.5A1(b), 9.5B3, 9.5C3, subsequent rules, and related LCRIs allow for the use of so-called "terms in common usage" for the SMD. Various aspects of this issue have been discussed in the past on the OLAC discussion list and in the OLAC Newsletter Q&A column (24:4 [December 2004] p. 58-59 [http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/newsletters/2004December.pdf, p. 55-56]; 27:1 [March 2007] p. 49 [http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/newsletters/2007March.pdf, p. 46]). The SMD of "online resource" strikes me as too ambiguous, but is clearly permissible under the current rules. My own preference would be to follow the examples under 9.5B3 and 9.5C3, when circumstances allow, but that's just me.
Question: Is there any way to insert the character µ into an OCLC record? I’ve look at the special characters and symbols list and I do not see it. Is our only option to type in the phrase [Greek letter mu] each time? I’m hoping I am just overlooking something and someone will point me in the right direction.
Answer: For the treatment of Greek characters, OCLC's document "Entering non-ALA Diacritics and Special Characters" (http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/diacritics/default.htm) says: "Spell out in English and enclose in square brackets." It furthermore refers to LCRI 1.0E for additional details where one finds: "In roman script records romanize all occurrences of Greek letters ... regardless of the facilities available (the intent is to assist filing and searching even though there are characters for alpha, beta, and gamma in the character set and certain Greek capital letters are identical to their roman equivalents)." Included in the LCRI is the following example:
chief source: … materials lists for high-power 10.6 µ windows…
transcription: 245 10 $a ... materials lists for high-power 10.6 [mu] windows Simply substitute the designation “[mu]” for the Greek character.
Question: We are wondering about the use of subfields $p and $b in the 245 field. We're currently working on television scripts with specific episode names and have seen records in OCLC with subfield $p for the specific title and subfield $b as well in the 245 field. We're just wondering what might be the correct usage. I've also seen the subfield $p used for specific seasons on the DVD collections we get of certain shows.
Answer: Generally, if one is constructing a title for a television program consisting of a comprehensive title and an episode title, the former would go in subfield $a and the latter in subfield $p. In cases where the episode designation is numeric (such as a date of initial broadcast or an episode number), the episode's numeric designation would be in subfield $n. For similarly constructed titles involving season collections, the season numeration part of the title (such as "The complete first season," "Season two," or "Year three") would usually go in subfield $n because they function numerically. You may want to look at LCRI 25.5B Appendix I, which goes into great detail about constructing such titles for television programs (and motion pictures and radio programs).
Question:LCRI 2.7B18 provides guidance and instruction for formal and informal contents notes as well as notes for the presence of bibliographies and indexes. But it does not, that I can see, say anything about the order of notes (505 before 504 or vice versa), nor does LCRI 1.7B provide anything useful. My interpretation reading LCRI 2.7B18 and my expectation based on other patterns where something is mentioned first or used first (Chapter 9 rules taking precedence over Chapter 12 for note order or 700 before a 700 with subfield $t, for example), would be to present contents notes (505) before bibliography/index notes (504 or 500), because that is the order in which it is presented in the LCRI. This would also seem logical to me, as the bibliography and index would typically come at the end of a book, so having that note follow the 505 would also parallel the order on the page. What I typically see is the reverse, 504 before 505, and often "500 Includes index" before a 505. So I'm just curious if I'm missing some LCRI or guidance somewhere, and I've been looking everywhere, or if this practice of 504 before 505 has just evolved outside of any guidance at all.
Answer: The only general guidance about the order of notes that I am aware of is in the rule X.7B of AACR2 Chapters 1 through 12. The wording varies slightly and a few of the chapters (4, 11, and 12) include advice on special circumstances. But the essence is that notes are to be in the order of the rules, although a particular note may be placed first when it is judged to have "primary importance." The rules cleverly ignore the instances where a particular rule can generate multiple notes, as is commonly the case with the X.7B18 series on Contents notes. The preponderance of LC records do appear to place a bibliography and/or index note before a formal contents note, although it's not difficult to find even the occasional LC record that does it the other way around. We might attribute the relative consistency of practice to something as simple as the order of the examples that are found in 2.7B18, listing the bibliography and index notes before the formal contents notes. We might attribute it to the wording of the actual rule, which reads in part: "List the contents of an item, either selectively or fully ..." -- possibly suggesting that such selective contents notes as a bibliography and/or index note would precede a full contents note. We might attribute it to the order of LCRI 2.7B18, in which the section on the "Informal Contents Note" (including "bibliographies and bibliographical references, discographies, and filmographies ... and indexes") is before the section on the "Formal Contents Note." But then the LCRI confuses things with its special sections specifically on the "Bibliography Note" and "Indexes" after the "Formal Contents Note" section. If I were asked to cite a justification for putting the informal bibliography/index notes before a formal contents note, it would be the placement of the former before the latter in the LCRI. It's also interesting to note (pun intended) what it says in the LC "Music and Sound Recordings Online Manual" in the 5XX Notes -- General Information section: "Notes should be recorded in the order prescribed by AACR2, LCRIs, MDCs, and other instructions, without regard to their numerical tags. Notes not in one of the categories explicitly covered should be placed immediately before the position of the contents note." (Emphasis mine.) That doesn't really apply to the bibliography/index notes, but is interesting anyway.
Question:We’ve been struggling (almost agonizing) locally with the Expert Community directive to avoid including local data or local practices in master bibliographic records. It affects us heavily in two areas, relator codes/terms, and 655s. We apply relator vocabularies for certain categories of materials, and currently have been doing the work only in our local catalog. This is something we’re considering sharing with the broader community, but weren’t sure if the use of subfields $4 and $e would be considered local practice. We often will apply the codes or terms to only some of the headings in a bibliographic record, and the terms on our short list of terms to apply may be more general than what’s permitted. (E.g., we use “prf” instead of the more granular codes for instrumentalist or vocalist.) I could see that changing existing terms or terms to only those on our short list could be considered imposing our local practice on the world. But what about adding them to records lacking them? With WorldCat Identities being able to make use of this information, it seems like it could be beneficial. We also rely heavily on form/genre terms for our video materials. More of these terms are appearing in OCLC as libraries adopt using them. Our copy catalogers rely, once again, on a short list of terms to be applied to what they handle. Sometimes those terms represent less granularity than what would be in the record. Would it be considered inappropriate to share these with the world?
Answer: : If you are using the relator codes (subfields $4) that are valid in MARC 21 and are using them legitimately, you are following accepted national practice, and it's fine to add those to records. It is OK even if you choose to use only a limited list of such codes. Using a list of relator terms (subfields $e) that are not permitted under AACR2 21.0D and its LCRI would be considered a local practice. AACR2 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 limits the use of these abbreviations to "ill." alone, for illustrators of children's materials. So in general, unless you're cataloging children's materials or archival materials, the use of such terms in subfield $e would be a local practice. As to genre/form terms for videos, if you are following the LC guidelines for applying them and the official lists of terms (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/genreformgeneral.html), then again, you are following accepted national practice, even if you happen to be restricting yourself to a limited number of those terms. That's fine.
Question:When a parallel title appears on the disc label, but not on the title frames of a DVD, would it be correct to include the parallel title in the 245 field?
245 00 [Title from screen] = $b [Parallel title from disc].
According to AACR2 rule 1.0A3.iv): "If the information traditionally given on the title page is not complete on one source (e.g., facing pages or pages on successive leaves), treat the sources as if they were a single source." Since the disc label is also considered a chief source (even if it's secondary in importance to the title frames), would the above rule still apply in this situation and justify the recording of the disc parallel title in the 245 field?
Answer: Although the wording of the section of 1.0A3 that you quote leaves a lot of room for interpretation regarding resources such as DVDs that don't traditionally have title pages, I still think that you are correct to include the parallel title in field 245.
Question:If I catalog a remote database and decide not to assign any class number to it does this affect the encoding level?
Answer:You may want to check out the "Full, Core, Minimal and Abbreviated-Level Cataloging" section of Bibliographic Formats and Standards (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/onlinecataloging/default.shtm#BCGGBAFC), especially the "Comparison of cataloging level guidelines" section. Full Level (OCLC Encoding Level I) suggests a classification number if available, and Core Level (ELvl 4) suggests one as well. Under Minimal Level (ELvl K), a classification number is optional. That being said, there are many kinds of resources (commonly such things as remote access resources, videorecordings, and sound recordings) that many institutions choose not to classify as a matter of policy. If that is the case, and all other aspects of a particular record fulfill Full or Core levels, you should feel free to code the record as such.
Question:What are libraries doing about titles for television programs that consist of a comprehensive title and an individual title for a particular episode when the particular episode is not intended to be viewed consecutively? Are they consistently following the LCRI 25.5B Appendix I or is it pretty much ignored? Sometimes you think of the comprehensive title as a series.
Answer: It's hard to generalize about how consistently catalogers are applying LCRI 25.5B Appendix I. Although it is intended specifically for use by PCC participants (and in certain respects by LC catalogers, who catalog moving images according to AMIM rather than AACR2 proper), other catalogers have found it a useful guide for identifying motion pictures, videorecordings, television programs, radio programs, and related resources. Catalogers may choose to follow or not follow its provisions, depending upon the characteristics of one's collection, the needs of one's users, and one's own cataloging policy choices. You can also follow the LCRI in cases where you feel the need to differentiate similarly titled resources (remakes, for example) or want to impose some logical order on otherwise chaotic titles (season collections of TV programs, for instance), and ignore it when there is no need for a uniform title. The case of TV programs not intended to be viewed consecutively is one of those where it could make a lot of sense to apply the LCRI
Question:In your Cataloging Digital Media workshop, I'm confused by your map showing where NTSC, PAL, etc. are used. The map shows SECAM in a lot of places from which I've had plenty of PAL media, such as Russia and France. I catalog a lot of videorecordings from these countries and I don't think I've cataloged a SECAM disc or cassette in the ten years I've been a working cataloger. I have heard that SECAM and PAL are almost identical--do you think the publishers may be just calling it all PAL, even though it's technically SECAM? Or perhaps those countries make SECAM for domestic use but PAL for export? Although when I was in Russia in 1995-1996, they seemed to be using PAL and to consider SECAM something obscure and foreign.
Answer: As I understand things, the map reflects the official color television broadcast standards of the particular region, which in turn has tended to reflect the predominant color standard supported by the technologies (TVs, VCRs, DVD players, etc.) most widely available in those regions. It does not by any means imply that every videorecording originating in a particular country is available only in that particular color system. In the increasingly global marketplace, manufacturers all over the place no doubt make their DVDs available in whichever color systems they believe they can sell. Because NTSC has been the standard in the U.S., it would not be unusual for a U.S. cataloger to have rarely encountered DVDs in either of the other formats unless the institution was going out of its way to make such DVDs available (and was willing to support that availability with the appropriate hardware).
Question:Are the Date 1 and Date 2 fields OCLC fields, or standard MARC fields? I'm asking because I've long been frustrated at the impossibility of searching an OPAC for videorecordings, then limiting by year of the film's original release, or even just searching by year of release, or a range of years. I think such a feature would be very useful to library users and the fact that it can't be done makes libraries (and particularly catalogers of videorecordings) look out of touch and even stupid. This is one case where it's not the ILS's fault--if there's no place for it consistently in the record, there's nothing even the best ILS can do. Do you know of any plan or proposal addressing this problem? Have you ever thought of a way it might be solved?
Answer: The capabilities and limitations of your local system are issues between you and your vendor, of course. But when coding policies discourage the recording of such pertinent information as the date of a film's original production in a coded form, I agree with you that it isn't helpful. I've written and spoken on this issue numerous times (including in the OLAC Newsletter 24:3 (September 2004) p. 52-54; online at: http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/newsletters/2004September.pdf, p. 46-48). The Date 1 and Date 2 elements are official MARC 21 elements (008/07-10 and 008/11-14, respectively; see http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008a.html). Please do look at that OLAC Newsletter Q&A, because I vehemently opposed the policy choice of not consistently coding Date 2 for videos just as you've suggested, but lost that debate many years ago. It might be a little comfort to know that RDA will treat this particular data element with a bit more respect.