Logic in “Stereo.”

Question: Often in the 538 or 300 tag I see the word “stereo” with a period (full stop) after it (e.g., “DVD, stereo., …”). I also see it in an example in AACR2, 7.7B10. I guess it's an abbreviation for “stereophonic.” Do you keep the period in, to distinguish it from the noun, or delete it?

Answer: As illogical as it may seem in the context of everyday usage, “mono.”, “stereo.” , and “quad.” are all considered to be abbreviations (for “monophonic,” “stereophonic,” and “quadraphonic,” respectively) by AACR2 Appendix B.9. So whenever and wherever they appear, they should always be followed by a period (unless, for instance, they're being transcribed in a title or a quoted note). AACR2 often works in mysterious ways.

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

Attention to Detail

Question: I am working with a graduate student on a cataloging practicum. We were cataloging some government documents and he asked me why I was putting the extra publication information (January 1956 for example) in a note field rather than using a DtSt “e” and putting the year in the first date field and the month in the second date field. I just love it when new people ask those gotcha questions <grin>. I didn't have a good answer for him other than I had never seen it done that way before. And to be honest I hadn't really noticed the option before. I'd like to give him a better answer than "I've never done it that way before". So do people use that option and if so in what circumstances? Is there a benefit to using one method over the other? And can anyone show me an example of a record in OCLC that uses the DtSt “e”?

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

Mess Kit

Question: I am banging my head against the definition of a "kit" right now. I have these "kits" by Lakeshore "products designed with learning [not cataloging] in mind!" One example is: Is Your Mama a Llama? This "kit" contains a "big book" (48 cm., published by Scholastic), a teacher's guide, riddle cards, puzzles, and a bag of plastic and plush animals (including one llama, bat, swan, seal, cow, and kangaroo) -- everything else says it's published by Lakeshore. It is packaged in a big hanging bag. What I have "feels" like a kit (Visual Material, Type o), but before I go ahead and catalog it as a kit, I want to run this by you because it sort of fits the AACR2 Appendix D definition of “kit”: "An item containing two or more categories of material, no one of which is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item." (The thing is, I think the big book is probably considered the predominant piece of the kit. But then if you asked my son, he would definitely say that the bag of animals is the predominant material.) But, LCRI 1.10 says “For items that are made up of two or more components, treat one component as the predominant component; treat the other components as accompanying material.” That sounds like I should catalog the big book and add the other parts as accompanying material (Books, Type a; 300 + $e). What's your take on this?

Answer: Confusion about how to deal with kits is understandable because there have been historical contradictions between LC and OCLC practice in this area. AACR2 1.1C1 has two lists of General Material Designations (GMDs), the first for British use and the second for use in Australia, Canada, and the United States. (Yes, this is in regard to GMDs, not SMDs, but please bear with me.) The 1.1C1 list includes the GMD “[kit]”. LCRI 1.1C, however, further restricts the “LC practice” to a shorter list that excludes the GMD “[kit]”. In BFAS 2.1, though, OCLC posits its own longer list of permissible GMDs in WorldCat, explicitly including “[kit]”. Now, if you are following AACR2 and the LCRIs for “Items Made Up of Several Types of Material,” the relevant rule is 1.10. Rule 1.10C2 outlines three ways of specifying physical descriptions for these sorts of resources:

1. Give the extent of each part or group of parts belonging to each distinct class of material as the first element of the physical description (do this if no further physical description of each item is desired). Optionally, if the parts are in a container, name the container and give its dimensions.
   
   400 lesson cards, 40 answer key booklets, 1 student record, 1 teacher's handbook, 1 placement test ; in container 18 × 25 × 19 cm.
   
   12 slides, 1 sound cassette, 1 booklet, 1 map ; in box 16 × 30 × 20 cm.
   
2. Give a separate physical description for each part or group of parts belonging to each distinct class of material (do this if a further physical description of each item is desired). Give each physical description on a separate line. Optionally, if the parts are in a container, name the container after the last physical description and give its dimensions.
   
   Beyond the reading list [GMD] : guidelines for research in the humanities / C.P. Ravilious ; University of Sussex Library. – Brighton [England] : University of Sussex Library, Audio-Visual Materials Room [distributor], 1975
   
   46 slides : col.
   
   1 sound cassette (15 min.) : analog, mono.
   
   Summary: The bibliographic control of the humanities, with special reference to literature. A typical research project is followed through. – Intended audience: Postgraduates and research students
   
   Hot deserts [GMD] / Ruth Way. – London ; Toronto : Visual Publications, [1975?]
   
   1 filmstrip (39 fr.) : col. ; 35 mm.
   
   1 sound cassette (ca. 18 min.) : analog, mono.
   
   4 study prints : col. ; 29 × 88 cm., folded to 29 × 44 cm.
   
   1 v. (15 p.) ; 22 cm.
   
   1 folded sheet (4 p.) ; 22 cm.
   
   All in container 33 × 47 × 5 cm.
   
   (The Earth & man. The Earth without man ; 4). – Pictures on filmstrip and study prints identical. – Cassette has automatic and manual advance signals
   
3. For items with a large number of heterogeneous materials, give a general term as the extent. Give the number of such pieces unless it cannot be ascertained. Optionally, if the pieces are in a container, name the container and give its dimensions.
   
   various pieces
   
   27 various pieces
   
   42 various pieces ; in box 20 × 12 × 6 cm.
   
   LCRI 1.10, however states: “LC practice for general cataloging: For items that are made up of two or more components, treat one component as the predominant component (1.10B); treat the other component(s) as accompanying material (1.5E). Do not apply 1.10C.” This particular LCRI is at least partly an outgrowth of the sorts of materials that LC does and does not catalog (and does and does not catalog according to AACR2 – as OLAC members know, LC uses AMIM for moving image materials, not AACR2 proper, for example). Which is why it is “LC practice for general cataloging” not to catalog anything that would fit under the GMD “[kit]” as an “Item Made Up of Several Types of Material” under 1.10, but rather as the “predominant component” with accompanying material. (Following me so far?) By sanctioning the use of the GMD “[kit]”, however, OCLC by implication must also be allowing users to ignore LCRI 1.10, thereby allowing us to describe kits in any of the three ways outlined in AACR2 Rule 1.10C2 proper (above). If you choose option (c), you may further describe the individual pieces to your heart's content elsewhere in notes (500, 505, 520, whatever might make sense in your particular circumstances). This may be fudging a little, but the way the parenthetical in Option (a) is worded, you can also get away with further describing some, but not each , of the items if you need to.

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

AACR2 Theory, LC Practice

Question: To follow up, it has always been my understanding that libraries cataloging at the national level (i.e., on OCLC) were expected to follow LC rule interpretations but were under no such obligation to follow LC practices , which simply document the local practices of the library in Washington DC. This is assuming that OCLC does not have a documented alternative practice, which OCLC contributors are obligated to follow. Is that not the general understanding?

Answer: In an attempt not to overload readers with even more detail than was already there in my comments, I conveniently lumped a lot of stuff under the phrase “historical contradictions between LC and OCLC practice,” and left it at that. But now that you've opened Pandora's box, I'll offer a little more detail and risk that overload. As those of us of a certain age will remember, the LCRIs evolved from internal LC documents, into documents shared with the cataloging community, into a de facto “national practice.” Part of that evolution also had to do with sometimes specifying certain LCRIs as “LC practice,” “LC/NACO practice,” “LC/CONSER practice,” (later) “LC/PCC practice,” and occasional other variations. I'm sorry to say that OCLC has been less than precise in BFAS 2.1 in the section entitled “Resolving conflicts between practices,” in making little distinction between “LC practice” and the LCRIs generally.

Both OCLC and LC create rules for online cataloging. In general, follow LC practice when creating new records. If OCLC practice conflicts with LCRIs, follow OCLC practice. … Libraries participating in cooperative programs with the Library of Congress (i.e., BIBCO, CONSER, NACO, PCC) must follow appropriate LCRIs for records and headings created as part of those programs.

Again, this is partly historical because the LCRIs began literally as (and were considered for a long time to be) “LC practice,” before there was a need to acknowledge what we might think of as those different “levels” of LCRIs. In that BFAS section (and sometimes elsewhere in BFAS and in other OCLC cataloging documentation), we point out where users are encouraged to follow what we too-loosely call “LC practice” or the appropriate LCRI. We also sometimes note where users may not, or should not, follow “LC practice” or the LCRI. We have not consistently made a proper distinction between the LCRIs in general and those that are labeled as “LC practice” or “LC/PCC practice” or whatever. Here is part of what LC says in the “Introduction” to the LCRIs:

[I]t is incumbent upon the Library of Congress to make decisions to provide common practice in order to share bibliographic and authority records for the common good, which may at times be at odds with local needs. One means of doing this is distinguishing in the LCRIs among practice that is applicable nationally, practice that is applicable only to LC, or practice that is applicable at some combined level, usually applicable to LC in combination with a formal program such as CONSER or NACO. Thus the introductory phrase "LC practice:" signals a practice applicable solely to LC; it is discretionary for other libraries. The phrase "LC/CONSER practice:" is applicable to LC and other members of CONSER but is discretionary for other libraries. A new phrase "LC/NACO practice:" was introduced in the summer of 1996. Practice introduced by this phrase is applicable to LC and to those libraries that are NACO participants contributing authority records to the national authority file.

In the “2002 Preface” to the LCRIs is this update: “… the glosses ‘LC practice,' ‘PCC practice,' or ‘LC/PCC practice' are used to distinguish practices of these organizations from general national practice (see Introduction for fuller information). Note that ‘PCC practice' replaces both ‘NACO practice' and ‘CONSER practice'.” So part of what I was trying to say was pretty much what you've said. There's some confusion, though, caused in part by OCLC's tendency to refer to “LC practice” and the LCRIs synonymously, rather than consistently following the distinctions that evolved over time and that LC has described in the LCRI “Introduction” between what everyone should follow and what only certain categories of catalogers (LC, PCC, etc.) are required to follow. Needless to say, in the cooperative environment of WorldCat, it's often a good idea to follow even many of those specialized practices, which is what OCLC often suggests to our users.

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

Born to Link

Question: A question has come up about whether it is OK to insert a 776 field in an e-book record linking to a record for a printed version when they were not exactly identical. I realize that in most cases, this would never be an issue. Most e-book records are reproductions of books originally

published in print, so they would contain a linking field to whichever edition they corresponded to. But in a case when something is born digital and not an exact reproduction of any printed version for the same book, would it be incorrect to insert a 776 link back to a printed version of the book? In other words, the textual content might be the same, but it might not include things like pagination or the same illustrations might not correspond to any printed edition out there. This is sort of a hypothetical question, but we were just wondering.

Answer: Because my colleague Robert Bremer knows much more about those linking fields and their use than I do, I asked for his take on your question. Here is his response: “Yes, make the 776 link if the text is believed to be the same. There is always an expectation of the possibility that the formatting of the online vs. the print will be different or that one may have illustrations or advertising or supplemental text that the other does not in a particular case.”

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

Transparency in Coding Illustrations

Question: In Bibliographic Formats and Standards, field 300 gives an example of "transparencies" cited in a 300 field, but the page for the "Ills”, Illustrations fixed field element doesn't indicate how that could be coded in the 008 field.

Answer: A resource that was described as "7 transparencies (15 overlays)" in field 300 subfield $a (to use the relevant example in BFAS field 300) would be coded on a Visual Materials format record, Type "g", TMat "t" (for "transparency"). The Visual Materials format does not itself have a specific means of coding the kinds of illustrations. The "Ills" fixed field element is valid only on Books format records (Type "a"). The coding there would depend upon what sorts of illustrations were present. In a case where transparencies were accompanying material to a book, let's say, and were specified in field 300 subfield $e, any kinds of illustrations on the transparencies could be coded in the Books format "Ills" fixed field.

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

Nothing for Overtime

Question: I have in front of me a set of DVDs whose total running time is 2515 minutes. If (and it's a big if) I were to catalog them as a multivolume set, the running time would have to go into the fixed field for the running time. The field has only room for three digits. How should we handle this?

Answer: Both MARC 21 and OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards say that if the running time exceeds three digits, you are to enter three zeros.

DVD Dilemma

Question: We have DVDs that have a short video along with supporting material in PowerPoint and PDF. The physical item has “DVD Video” on it, so we are debating on whether we should call it a DVD-ROM or a DVD-Video in the 538 field. On top of this we are debating whether it should have a GMD of “[electronic resource]” or “[videorecording]”. These videos are used for training employees about stress, customer service, etc. Any help is appreciated.

Answer: First, you need to decide what is the main content of the resource. As you've described it, the video seems to be the main thing, so describe it as such: Type "g", TMat "v"; "1 videodisc ...", or "1 DVD-video" if your institution applies that option in 7.5B1, in field 300; "[videorecording]" as the GMD; video 007 field for the DVD. Include a Book 006 for the PDF text and an Electronic Resource 006 for the electronic aspects. Include a 538 describing requirements for the DVD-video and another 538 for the requirements of the PowerPoint and PDF files.