Rules of Order

Question: Are subfields in MARC records always supposed to be listed in alphabetical order?  The question has come up because of the most recent change to subfields in the 041 field.  Language code for subtitles was moved from the subfield $b to the newly created subfield $j.  We're used to seeing the subfield $h (language code of original and/or intermediate translations of text), as the last subfield, and I think most of us have continued to list the subfield $h last without even thinking about it.  But a cataloger here brought this to my attention today, and we thought that perhaps we should be listing the subfields in alphabetical order (which would mean that the subfield $j is now the last field).  I've read BFAS and MARC 21 regarding the subfields in the 041 field and I've not seen anything about the order of subfields within the 041 field except in $h for music, where it says:  “For musical works, when printed or manuscript music, sound records or the accompanying material for these items is or includes a translation, subfield $h may follow the related subfield $a, $d, $e or $g.  Note also that the first indicator position may contain value 0 when it is the data element coded in subfields $e or $g that is a translation rather than that coded in subfields $a or $d.”  Subfield $j is not mentioned.

Answer: Subfields in MARC records are not generally intended to be input in alphabetical order.  In fact, putting them in alphabetical order would often render the resulting field nonsensical.  (Think of a name/music uniform title 700 field and what alphabetizing subfields would do to the field.)  In field 041 specifically, the subfield $h will often be the final subfield, but that is simply happenstance.  Subfield $h should follow each set of similarly coded subfields to which it applies.  So subfield $h can follow the set  of subfields $a, the set of subfields $d, the set of subfields $e, the set of subfields $g, the set of subfields $j, and so on.  Subfield $j isn’t mentioned in the “musical works” note because it is used for subtitles and captions found in visual materials, not for scores or sound recordings.  The editors of MARC 21 Bibliographic didn’t do much to field 041 to integrate the usage of subfield $j into the existing text (and we didn’t do much in BFAS, either).

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Questioning Authority

Question: I have a question about searching authority records in OCLC.  How do I find an authority record by the 010 field number?  I have someone sending me headings by the number, rather than the name.  I haven’t had any luck finding the records that way however.  Any hints?

Answer: In the Authority file, you can search LCCNs by using the “ln:” index, either on the command line or by choosing that label in a keyword/numeric search dropdown.  Include the prefix (sh, n, nr, no, etc.), but you may either include or omit both the spaces after the prefix and/or the hyphen within the LCCN.  For a change, the system seems to be quite forgiving about this.  You can read all about searching the Authority file in Authorities:  Format and Indexes .

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Illustrating a Point

Question:I’ve got a CD-ROM in hand, The history of top 40 saxophone solos, 1955-2003, which is a Word document (273 p. of portraits and biographical descriptions of various saxophonists), with an accompanying compact disc of 17 tracks featuring various saxophone soloists.  I need some help with the 300 field.  The illustrations in the CD-ROM are b&w and colored portraits of the saxophonists.  Can I designate “ports.” in the subfield $b of the 300 field (1 CD-ROM : $b ports. ; $c 4 3/4 in. + $e 1 sound disc : $b digital ; $c 4 3/4 in.)?

Answer: In AACR2 9.5C, there doesn't seem to be any provision for including direct indication of illustrations in the physical description for electronic resources.  To describe electronic resources, however, we refer to other chapters, so we should be able to indicate illustrations, especially for a primarily textual resource such as this, and not be limited to what Chapter 9 says.  Alternatively, you could note in a 500 the presence of the portraits, following 9.7B10.  By the way, you shouldn't further subfield the 300 after the subfield $e.  It should actually read:  1 CD-ROM : $b ports. ; $c 4 3/4 in. + $e 1 sound disc (digital ; 4 3/4 in.).

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Some Questions Defy Translation

Question: I was wondering if you could explain to me why we are not (according to the Guide to Cataloguing DVD and Blu-ray Disc using AACR2r and MARC 21) putting a subfield $h eng at the end of the 041 field if all we have is Closed-caption/SDH.

041 0  eng $j eng
546     Closed-captioned.

To me, when you are creating the closed-captioning (CC) or the Subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing (SDH), you are translating the spoken language into another form that will be read, even though the language is the same.  In fact, if you are translating the SDH, you are adding additional information into the text that will be read, but is not spoken (for example, clapping hands, wind blowing strongly, whistling).  It is stated in the context of the written language (and then read) that these things are occurring within the context of the film and were not actually being spoken by someone, but these events are being “translated” into the text of the SDH.  Same can be said for CC since every utterance is not translated and written for viewing.  Any insights into this would be greatly appreciated.

Answer: What an interesting philosophical question.  Actually this gets into the whole cataloging realm of performance, in a much wider sense.  It’s something that FRBR and RDA try to take into account in some respects, but it remains to be seen exactly how successfully in practice.  But let’s put aside performance and stick to translation.  Yes, absolutely, one is “translating” spoken words into closed-captioning text that is read.  Yes, one is “translating” spoken words, and beyond to other sounds, into SDH text that is read.  By the same token, a commentary soundtrack by directors, actors, or others on a DVD are “translating” the visual and aural experience in a similar sense.  And the critical essays that are collected and reprinted as part of a critical edition of a classic novel are “translating” the novel in a sense.  In fact, in that wider sense of “translate,” every spoken word recording would be a “translation” of a written text into the spoken word, even when the words are exactly the same.  For better or worse, though, the MARC 21 041 field intends to deal with a more narrow sense of “translate:”  that of turning one identifiable language into another identifiable language.  (By which I mean, a language that can be associated with a MARC Language Code, even if the cataloger cannot determine what language it may be.)  Philosophically, all of those other transformations are “translations,” but translations of a type that MARC isn’t trying to tease out.  And it’s arguable whether applying that wider definition would be useful in cataloging terms, making every spoken word recording a translation, making every recorded performance of a play or a film script into a translation.  (It’s interesting to note that not very long ago, MARC didn’t even recognize sign languages as distinct from spoken languages.)  Philosophically, we can recognize that every act of communication is a translation.  But for cataloging purposes, it’s probably prudent to limit our coding of field 041 to those instances involving “more than one language one of which may be a sign language.”

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

A Brief Dissertation on the “Thesis Equivalent”

Question: My question is about what we call “thesis equivalents.”  In some departments, graduate students are required to write a “research paper” or a “major report,” which the University doesn’t consider as theses per se.  We catalog them like theses, though, with a field 502 giving the degree, the institution, and the year.  We use “Research paper” or “Major report” instead of “Thesis” at the beginning of the note, though.  Because these are not theses, we decided not to use the code “m” for theses in field 008/24-27 (but we use field 502 which seems inconsistent to me).  I wonder, however, if we haven’t been too strict.  The MARC format says that this code should be used for a “Thesis, dissertation, or work identified as having been created to satisfy the requirements for an academic certification or degree.”  Since the paper or report is a requirement to get a degree, I think that code “m” would be applicable even for the thesis equivalents.  This would also be consistent with the use of field 502.  What do you think?

Answer: You may treat “theses equivalents” as you would any resource specifically identified as a thesis or dissertation, both in field 502 and in coding the Books 008/24-27 (fixed field Cont).  Surely it can’t be the intention of AACR2 1.7B13 to exclude such equivalents simply because they have some other designation in certain institutions or countries.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Convenience is Not an Option

Question:This is about the description of DVDs that accompany books or other types of materials.  Since we don’t apply the option at 7.5B1 that allows using a term in common usage in field 300 for videorecordings and the DVD format can’t therefore be specified in the physical description, we usually mention that the accompanying videodisc is a DVD in a note.  This is consistent with what we would do when cataloging a DVD as the main item.  However, we sometimes find records in LC’s catalog or in OCLC where the DVD format is mentioned in field 300, within the parentheses, e.g.:

010      $a 2009461321
020      $a 9783897902930
020      $a 3897902931
035      $a (OCoLC)ocn255903912
035      $a (OCoLC)255903912
040      $a BTCTA $c BTCTA $d YDXCP $d OHX $d BWX $d ZCU $d DLC
041 1   $a eng $a ger $h eng $h ger
042      $a lccopycat
050 00 $a ML3849 $b .A87 2009
082 00 $a 781.5/4 $2 22
245 00 $a Audio visual : $b on visual music and related media / $c edited by Cornelia and                 Holger Lund.
260      $a Stuttgart : $b Arnoldsche Art Publishers, $c 2009.
300      $a 319 p. : $|b ill. (some col.) ; $c 26 cm. + $e 1 videodisc (DVD, sd., col. ;                         4 3/4 in.)

This method is convenient because it saves the cataloger from making a note but it doesn’t seem authorized by AACR2.  What is your take on this practice?

Answer: If you have chosen not to apply the AACR2 7.5B1 option of using “a term in common usage” to describe either the main resource or the accompanying material, you cannot include the “DVD” designation in the parenthetical physical description of the accompanying material.  You must use a 538 note for that information.  You will notice that the record you’ve cited is not created by LC.  “DLC” appears in field 040 subfield $d, which suggests either that (in WorldCat) an incoming, lower Encoding Level LC record merely matched to this record, with some data having merged, or that (in WorldCat or in LC’s catalog) LC used an existing record as the basis for copy cataloging and accepted the cataloging as it was originally (see the 042).  That shouldn’t be taken as an LC endorsement of such a practice.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Separate but Neutral

Question: I am cataloging some monographs published online by the Danish Road Institute.  For example Acoustic aging of asphalt pavements:  a Californian/Danish comparison.  I am cataloging a printout of this PDF.  Formerly I would have used the separate record approach, and cataloged as a monograph with a 533 "Printout.  Description based on ...".  The 533 now appears to be obsolete.  How should I catalog using the single record approach?  Also, I see that non-PCC member libraries are encouraged to use the Provider-Neutral approach for born digital.  Even though I am cataloging a printout, would you recommend cataloging as Provider-Neutral (in which case I would have to make a note in our catalog that the library has a printout)?

Answer: Field 533 is not obsolete.  You may continue to catalog printouts of PDF files roughly as you would have before the Provider-Neutral guidelines were released, using either the separate record practice or the single record practice.  One substantive difference now is that, in a separate record for the printout, the description of the "original" online resource would be provider-neutral.  Field 533 with the details of the printout would still be added according to LCRI 1.11A.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

A Digitized Archival Collection Remains a Collection

Question:We have been getting a lot of websites to catalog that consist of digitized collections of archival materials.  An example is "Women in the National Archives" which contains the full text of archival material held at the National Archives, Kew.  Would it be appropriate to code the Bibliographic Level as "c" for collection?  According to OCLC's documentation, it stands for "A made-up multipart group of items that were not originally published, distributed or produced together.  The record describes units defined by common provenance or administrative convenience for which the record is intended as the most comprehensive in the system."  Although the website is a monograph, it is also a digitized collection of manuscripts that would fit the above definition.  I can see a case being made for doing it either way, but wanted to know what you thought.

Answer: Here is what my colleague, Susan Westberg, our archival material specialist suggested:  “My recommendation is to code BLvl "c" for collection, as it is still the inherent nature of the material.  Collections that have been microfilmed are also cataloged as such.”

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Two-Sided Discs of a Different Color

Question: I have the title Out of Africa.  According to the container and Side A of the disc, Side A contains the Blu-ray version of the film; while Side B contains the DVD version of the film.  According to the container: "Blu-ray + DVD:  both versions on One Disc, plays on DVD, Blu-ray players & Playstation 3."  So, I have one disc that contains both the Blu-ray version and the DVD version.  Universal Studios is promoting this as a Blu-ray item (and it’s priced accordingly).  Do I need to enter fields 006 and/or 007 for the DVD?  How should I enter the 300 to include both versions?  I am going to enter an additional 538 for the DVD, will this be okay?  I entered a 505 with Side A being the Blu-ray version and Side B being the DVD version.  Should I keep this information in the 505 or should I move it to a 500 note?  I don't know if this will now be a trend for films that are older and being re-released.

Answer: We should be able to base treatment of this Blu-ray/DVD hybrid on how DualDiscs (hybrid Audio CD/DVD on two sides of a single disc) are treated in the OLAC “Guide to Cataloging DVD and Blu-ray Discs Using AACR2r and MARC 21, 2008 Update”.  You don’t need a 006 field because the fixed field elements for Blu-ray discs and DVDs are identical.  You should include two Videorecording 007 fields, although the only difference will probably be that the first will have Subfield $e (007/04) coded “s” for Blu-ray and the second will be coded “v” for DVD.  If the disc calls itself some sort of distinctive name such as DualDisc, use that name (XXXX) as follows:  “1 XXXX : $b sd., col. ; $c 4 ¾ in.”  If there is no such designation:  “1 videodisc : $b sd., col. ; $c 4 ¾ in.”  Following practice for DualDiscs, first include a 500 note “Hybrid Blu-ray/DVD-video disc.”  Follow that with 538s for the Blu-ray side and the DVD side.  If you are saying simply that one side is Blu-ray and the other a DVD, you could state that in a 500 field.  If you will actually be listing contents for each side (Out of Africa, plus any supplemental material) and the contents actually differ from one side to the other, you could use two 505s.  If the contents of both sides are identical, one 505 will do and you could include the fact that the contents are identical in another note.  Detailing the supplemental materials in a 505 won’t always make sense (especially if some of the stuff lacks a formal title), in which case an informal contents note in 500 would be preferable.  You could note the differences (or the sameness) between the sides in that same note.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Rights, Right and Wrong

Question: Do you know if there is a recommendation or best practice coming out of OCLC or LC regarding “For private home use only” and similar statements placed in a 540 tag?  MARC documentation shows this as an ‘optional’ tag.  I get the impression from the verbiage that the original intent for usage of this note may have been for situations of “unusual” rights or restrictions for materials, especially unique or archival materials held in libraries.  It seems like perhaps 75% of recent A/V records on OCLC contain such a statement, but a substantial portion do not, even when coming from fairly mainstream cataloging sources that are otherwise complete detailed cataloging.  So, we are looking for direction regarding whether or not we should take the cataloging time to add a 540 tag when absent, if there are broader standards or reasons to do so, or leading organizations saying whether the tag should be included.  Thank you for your advice.

Answer: According to the MARC 21 definition of field 540, it contains:  "Terms governing the use of the materials after access has been provided.  The field includes, but is not limited to, copyrights, film rights, trade restrictions, etc. that restrict the right to reproduce, exhibit, fictionalize, quote, etc.  Information about restrictions imposed on access to the described materials is recorded in field 506 (Restrictions on Access Note)."  Some catalogers include the “For private home use only” designation in field 540, some don’t, and I know of no formal recommendations either way.  Restrictions on the exhibition of a film only to home use certainly fits within the definition of the 540.  But it could be argued that only exceptions to that common and widespread restriction really need to be recorded; for instance, if public performance or other such rights apply in a particular case.  There’s nothing incorrect about including the home restriction, and some institutions may include such a note in an attempt to cover themselves legally.  You may want to consult with your institution’s lawyers about that.  Barring legal advice to the contrary, I’d lean in the direction of not including the common home use restriction, considering it mostly to be understood.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Even More Useless Than Other 007s?

Question: I am always trying to put field 007 into every special formats record, so here I have a sheep hand puppet.  As much as I want to put in field 007, I am not really supposed to, right?  It's #610605062, if you want to look at it.

Answer: MARC 21 is actually on your side in wanting to attach field 007 to everything.  In pure MARC 21, there is the “Unspecified” 007 that would cover your puppet.  In OCLC’s version of MARC, however, we have not implemented that 007, nor the ones for kit, text, or notated music, having deemed them to contain no useful data not already coded elsewhere in a record.  You can see the list of “MARC 21 Bibliographic Data Elements Not Implemented by OCLC, if you’re interested.  In the meantime, don’t make more work for yourself in trying to add field 007 to a Type “r” record.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

The Whole Kit and Caboodle

Question: I have two different mixed media items to catalog. I think they qualify as kits, but I’m not familiar with the rules of kit cataloging.

• Civics and Citizenship Toolkit: a collection of educational resources for immigrants (GPO).
• The complete Absolute Beginner’s voice course.

I found a usable record in OCLC for each item. Can someone point me toward a kit cataloging resource, where I can verify that these materials are indeed kits, and where I can read the rules for cataloging them?

Answer: AACR2 Appendix D defines “kit” as:  “1. An item containing two or more categories of material, no one of which is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item; also designated “multimedia item” (q.v.).  2. A single-medium package of textual material (e.g., a “press kit,” a set of printed test materials, an assemblage of printed materials published under the name “Jackdaw”).”  The rules for cataloging “Items Made Up of Several Types of Material” can be found in AACR2 1.10.

<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>

Equivocal Language

Question:I have noticed what could be some equivocation in BFAS at 041.  Under subfield $a, the instruction says:  “For computer files, record the language(s) associated with the data and/or user interface (e.g., screen displays) in subfield $a.”  But, under subfield $d, it states:  “The language code(s) for the audible portion of an item, usually the sung or spoken content of a sound recording or computer file.”  (Emphasis mine.)  When the item is an electronic resource, like that of #401164840 or #340213712, which method is correct?   041 1   $a eng $a jpn or 041 1   $d eng $d jpn?  Also, I’ve wondered whether the first code, in typical language instruction materials should be the target (“foreign”) language or the language used to accomplish the instruction (usually the native learner’s language).  I’m sure that this is not the first time you have traveled the rocky trail of the 041, but I would appreciate any help you can provide

Answer: If a computer file has both textual (that is, visual) and audible aspects to it, as these language instruction computer files have, AND if more than one language is involved, as is obvious in the case of language instruction files, then you would use both subfields $a and $d for those respective aspects.  The order of Language Codes is supposed to be determined first by their predominance.  If prominence can’t be determined, then by English alphabetical order.  In language instructional materials, predominance may be difficult to determine.  (My first thought was that the “foreign”/”target” language would usually predominate, but I’m not sure that is really the case.)