OLAC
Home about The J. Paul Getty Museum publications & training materials conferences & events photos join
Recent Newsletters
v.31.1 (March 2011)
v.30.4 (December 2010)
v.30.3 (September 2010)
 
Newsletter Archives
 
 
 



OLAC Home Publications & Training Materials Newsletters Newsletter 31.2 (June 2011) Cataloger's Judgment

OLAC Cataloger's Judgment: Questions and Answers, Compiled by Jay Weitz

The Antithesis of Correct Coding

Question: At my library, we get a lot of theses and dissertations to catalog that have been recently come out of a 2-3 year embargo period.  As a result, the date the thesis was submitted (and degree granted) may be a few years off.  For instance, a thesis may have originally been submitted for a graduation date of 2009, while the thesis could not be made viewable to the public in our repository until 2011 due to the terms of the embargo.  Our theses are electronic-only, and thus “born digital,” so we catalog them using the date the item was “published” (i.e., made available on the Web).  The problem is that some patrons expect to be able to sort by the author’s graduation date.  One of my colleagues suggested using “DtSt:  p” and recording the date the thesis was originally submitted in the “Date 2” field of the record, while recording the date that the thesis was made available online in “Date 1.”  I have never seen dates recorded this way in the 008 field for anything other than video and sound recordings, but OCLC’s Bibliographic Formats and Standards doesn’t contain any instructions that would limit the use of these codes to just audiovisual materials.  It just says:  “Date of distribution/release/issue and date of production/recording session when different.  The date of distribution/release/issue and the date of production/recording differ by at least one year.  Use Date 1 for the year of distribution/release/issue (e.g., the date the material became available).  Use Date 2 for the year of production/recording (i.e., the date the material was made).”  Do you think that using the 008 field coded values would be appropriate in the case of original dates that a thesis was submitted?  I don’t know if this is an accurate analogy to the situation when the release and original production/recording dates for videos and sound recordings, since this assumes that the date a thesis was submitted equates to date of “production/recording.”  I think they would coincide, however.  Could you advise in this situation?

Answer: Although this proposed use of DtSt code “p” has a certain seductive logic to it, the consensus here was that it would not be a proper application of the code’s intended use.  What we suggest is using the data that you already record in field 502.  Looking at a few sample records, I find that you are already using the recently defined specific subfields in field 502, including subfield $d for the date of the degree.  If you have some control over the indexing in your local system, you might be able to include field 502 subfield $d in your date indexing somehow.  In Connexion, field 502 subfield $a is in the Notes (“nt:”) and Keyword (“kw:”) indexes; subfields $b, $c, $d, $g, and $o are in Keyword, if that helps at all.  When trying to explain this to your colleagues, it might be useful to remember that before Format Integration in the mid-1990s, DtSt code “p” was defined and valid only in Computer Files, Music (that is, in this context, Sound Recordings), and Visual Materials, the only formats in which “Date of … production/recording session” were relevant.  Except for two or three minor tweaks, the pre-Format Integration wording and the current wording of the definition are identical (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008a.html).  Perhaps this analogy would be useful.  If they were cataloging a new edition of a novel written in 1944, would they consider it appropriate to code Date 2 as “1944” and DtSt as “p”?

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

GO or No-GO on New Records?

Question: BBC Audiobooks America has essentially changed its name to AudioGO!  (Actually, I think there was some sort of buyout.  Changes have already been made to the appropriate authority records.)  They are now apparently planning to re-print all of their artwork (container/label) to reflect the new name and a new address.  BBC Audiobooks America will no longer be anywhere on the packaging, replaced instead with AudioGO.  We are working under the assumption that we need to create new records for things published under the AudioGO imprint.  As far as I know, they are not planning to assign new ISBNs (since these are the same recordings that they'd issued before and the only change to the artwork is the publisher name and address).

Answer: As much as I shudder to say it, there seems to be no way around the fact that new records would be needed in the case of such a new publisher name.  Both “When to Input a New Record” and “Differences Between, Changes Within” would agree on that point.  A change from “BBC Audiobooks America” to  “AudioGO!” (with or without the exclamation point) wouldn’t be a mere “variation in fullness” or something we might be able to fudge.

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

Baseless Fears of the Printed Version

Question: When creating a record for an online version from an existing record in a “physical” or “tangible” non-projecting graphic format, what would you use in the 588 “Description based on” note?

588  Description based on graphic version record.
588  Description based on chart version record
588  Description based on chart record.

776 08 $i Graphic version: $a …
776 08 $i Chart version: $a …

Any advice?

Answer: In the case of a chart, map, or other original that could reasonably and understandably be referred to as “printed,” there’s no reason why “Description based on print version record” couldn’t be used for the online version record.  That seems to me the most user-friendly construction.  Likewise, there doesn't seem to be any reason why “Print version” couldn’t be used in the subfield $i in the corresponding 776.

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

The Bottom Nightline

Question: I have a DVD for an “episode” of the news program “Nightline.”  I am struggling over what to put in the 245.  There are three segments on the 17-minute video.  The opening credits clearly display the ABC News and the “Nightline” logos, then the introduction to the program highlights the three different stories, with the titles (Living the Dream, Diet Debate, etc.) displaying on the screen.  After the three stories are introduced, the “Nightline” logo (displayed on the Times Square jumbotron screen) with the date of the program comes on.  When the first story starts, (the one identified in the intro as Living the Dream), “Dollars and Sense” is displayed as the title.  So each segment/story evidently has two titles.  What do I put in the 245?  Do I treat it as a resource that does not have a collective title, and include all three in the 245?  If so, which of the three titles do I put?  That would relegate “Nightline” to a 730 (or 830?), I suppose, with a note saying that this episode of “Nightline” aired on whatever the date was (or some records I’ve seen have it in a 490/830).  Or do I put “Nightline” in the 245 subfield $a, with the individual segments in subfield $b or in a separate subfield $p?  I’m so confused.  I searched via Connexion for records for “Nightline,” and saw many differences and variations in practice.  The 730 vs. 830 thing confuses me a lot too.  I guess I don’t know when each one is the appropriate one to use.

Answer: You may want to look at LCRI 25.5B, Appendix I, part of which deals with “Television Programs (including video and film formats).”  It doesn’t address all of your concerns, but might help a little.  In addition, my responses will attempt to be in the spirit of that LCRI even when the LCRI doesn’t directly apply.  Given the information you’ve supplied, here’s what I would do.  Consider “Nightline” as the title (245 subfield $a) and the date of the program as the subfield $n of the title proper.  These together serve as a legitimate collective title.  Include the three segment titles that appear in the credits on screen as the titles in a 505 contents note.  Add another 500 note (or notes) listing the segment titles that are presented elsewhere (at the head of each individual segment, on the container, etc.) noting also where those alternative titles appear.  Add a 730 for “Nightline (Television program)” (n85386968), as a uniform title added entry for the related television program.  Those are my suggestions based on what you’ve said, although if I had the resource in front of me, I might make other or additional suggestions.

 

 

Newsletter 31.2 (June 2011)



Table of Contents

From the President

From the Editor

    Treasurer's Report

Conference Corner

Meetings of Interest

News and Announcements

Reviews

OLAC Cataloger's Judgment

News from OCLC

OCLC QC Tip of the Month

Masthead

 

 

OCLC News

Reviews

Back to Top