Mini Change Helps Macro Help You

Question: :  I am trying to figure out how to generate a field 034 from a field 255 using the OCLC macro when there is more than one 255 field.  It seems that the 034 will only generate from the first 255, no matter whether I highlight the second 255 or not.  Do you have some advice?

Answer: :  My colleague Robert Bremer, who is our macro specialist, has these comments:  "The macro just looks for the first 255 in the record.  So, I would suggest that after generating the 034 based on the first 255, temporarily change the tag of the first 255 to 250, run the 034 macro again to generate a second 034 based on the second 255, etc., then change the tag of the 250 back to 255."  See how that works for you.

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

Speaking the Same Languages

Question: :  We are running across Visual Materials records that are created using what might be prepublication data.  In many cases, the languages are not matching up with what we have.  We know that prepublication data is often from sell sheets or Web pages provided by the distributors, not always from the container.  Prepublication data are not an ideal source for accurate information, as we all know.  Is it OK for us to upgrade these and edit the languages to match our resource or would it be best to create a new record due to the languages not matching?  I hate to mess with another library's record but at the same time, duplicates are not our friends and I'm thinking that DDR will more than likely merge if we entered a new record.

Answer: DDR generally has a large amount of trouble distinguishing videorecordings that have different language options, even in cases where there are actually differing versions of the video.  Some catalogers are more or less thorough than others in delineating exactly what languages may be available on any single video.  There can be contradictory information about language availability within the same DVD (on packaging and on a displayed menu, for instance).  Sometimes, on-screen menus include language options that cannot actually be chosen.  So there can be contradictory descriptions of even the same published resource (let alone prepublication data), dependent upon how deeply the cataloger delves into the various language options.  With this in mind, it will usually be prudent to take such language data, whether in a bibliographic record, in prepublication data, or within the resource itself, with some skepticism.  My suggestion is to err on the side of editing existing records that may be close, but not exact, matches to what is in hand.

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

Looser Usage

Question: Some catalogers use the GMD “kit” for any resource that has to be assembled rather than a GMD that represents what the resource actually is, such as “model”, “diorama”, “game”, or “realia”.  They argue that patrons think of these things as “kits” that need to be put together and so that’s what we should call them, as well.  What’s your take on this practice?

Answer: Some catalogers occasionally forget that, for better or for worse, we have our own specialized definitions of terms that have much looser meanings in common English usage.  The AACR2 Glossary (Appendix D) has the following introductory note:  “This glossary contains definitions of most of the technical bibliographic and cataloguing terms (for both print and nonprint materials) used in these rules.  The terms have been defined only within the context of the rules.  For definitions of other terms, consult the standard glossaries of bibliographic and library terms or technical dictionaries.”  This includes words such as “score,” “kit,” “edition,” and “graphic,” each of which has a definition that is much more narrow than what we find in everyday speech or that has a particular emphasis to allow catalogers a certain precision in bibliographic description.  The AACR2 definitions of “kit” are deliberately narrow and have only a glancing relationship to how the term gets used in the real world:  “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’).”  Whether this was a wise way for AACR2 to have defined “kit” isn’t for me to say.  But while we catalog using AACR2, perhaps conscientious catalogers can agree (paraphrasing Lewis Carroll) that “a word means what AACR2 says it means, neither more nor less.”

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

WAV Your CDs Goodbye

Question: I’ve encountered my first compact discs containing MP3 files.  I looked at the records in OCLC, and at LC’s “New Sound Recording Formats” guidelines, and decided that the GMD was “electronic resource” but the 300 was still “1 sound disc.”  Then I looked on the OLAC website and discovered to my delight that you can search across newsletters. There was a Q&A about MP3, and part of your response said “(presumably on a CD-ROM)…”  Looked back at the LC guidelines, and the definition says, “These may be stored in any of the standard ER formats:  floppy discs, CD-ROMs, etc.”  Doesn’t mention standard audio compact disc.  Uh-oh!  If the thin shiny thing that’s 4 ¾ inches across has MP3 files, is it by definition a CD-ROM, and that’s what goes in the 300 and 007?  The only indication that it is sound is in subfield $b of the 300, where you add “MP3 file”?

Answer: Here is my (possibly flawed) understanding.  Standard audio compact discs, which have been around commercially since 1982, store sound in WAV format, have a capacity of roughly 75 minutes of sound, and must spin in order to play.  MP3s are sound files that are much more compressed and therefore much smaller than those in WAV format; many more MP3 files than WAV files can be stored on a disc because of this greater compression.  Unlike standard audio compact discs, a disc containing MP3 files apparently does not have to spin all the time.  If I understand correctly, if you’ve got MP3 files on a tangible medium, it cannot by definition be considered a standard audio compact disc.  MP3 files on a tangible medium would be on a CD-ROM or on one of the many varieties of recordable disc media such as CD-R (Compact Disc-Recordable) or CD-RW (Compact Disc-ReWritable).  There probably was a time when you might sometimes be able to distinguish between those types of discs by what sort of machine they would play on, but that time is long gone.  If you have MP3 files on a disc, following the LC “New Sound Recording Formats” (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/soundrec.pdf) recommendations, the storage medium would be whatever variety of disc you’ve got, CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, etc.  That would be reflected in the 007 field, in the “electronic resource” GMD, and in the 300 field.  Of course, because these are sound files, the Type Code of the record would be “j” or “i” and you’d have a Sound Recording fixed field, plus a Computer File 006 with “File” coded “h” for “sound.”

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

File Under “Oops”

Question: I’m looking for some examples of when you would use the code “h” in “File” (008/26 in the COM format).  Also, would you or your patrons think of these materials as audio recordings?  The only examples I can think of are MIDI files, like OCLC #54098008 or #43015802.  “File” is the mnemonic for 008/26 in the COM format, defined in Bibliographic Formats & Standards (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/file.shtm)as “The type of computer file.  Such a file is a body of information or instructions encoded so that it requires the use of a computer (or related machine) to be properly interpreted.  This term encompasses both data files (numeric files, representational files and text files) and computer program files.”  Code “h” within File is defined as “Sounds.  File has data encoding computer producible sounds.”  I’m asking because in our local system, anything with 008/26 “h” currently is assigned the content type “audio recording.”  However, 008/26 “h” means other things in other formats, causing some items to be incorrectly assigned “audio recording”, so we need to make a change to qualify this by only things that are in the COM format (i.e. Leader(06)=m).  But I’m wondering if, even within the COM format, these are materials that our patrons would think of as “audio recordings.”

Answer: Sound recordings that have electronic resource aspects -- including CD-ROMs and other disc varieties that contain MP3 files, streaming and downloadable audio files accessed remotely, and Playaways -- would all have the “File” element coded as “h”.  That element would usually be in the Computer File 006/09, however, because the fixed field would correctly be coded as a Sound Recording (Type “i” or “j”).  The proper coding of a Computer File record (Type “m”) with File coded “h” in 008/26 would not be nearly as common because of the restrictions of Type “m” to “computer software (including programs, games, fonts), numeric data, computer-oriented multimedia, online systems or services” in MARC 21.  In MARC, as you well know, the 008/18-34 positions can vary widely from bibliographic format to bibliographic format and in each case, the correct interpretation of any one of those 008 positions is defined by and dependent upon the Leader/06 (Type of Record) code associated with the 008 in question.

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

Once More into the (Playaway GMD) Breach

Question: I’ve been looking at bibliographic records in OCLC for both the Playaway and the Playaway View.  The 245 subfield $h is  “electronic resource” for the Playaway View but for the Playaway I’ve seen some that have “sound recording” and some that have “electronic resource”.  Electronic resource generally means a computer is needed for access.  A computer is not needed to access either a Playaway or a Playaway View, so why use electronic resource as the GMD?  It seems like the GMD for the View should be “videorecording” instead.  Are they considering the View player itself to be a type of computer?  If so, then why isn’t the Playaway device a type of computer too?  Up to now our patrons generally know that “[electronic resource]” means there is no actual, physical item in the library.  Using that term for the Playaways would be confusing in that regard because there will be a physical item they can check out.  So, which is the correct GMD for each of these materials?

Answer: :  Playaways, and especially the issue of the proper GMD, have been the subject of discussion and contention pretty much ever since the format surfaced in 2005.  Please see the OLAC "Guide to Cataloging Playaway Devices Based on AACR2 Chapters 6 and 9" (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/playawaysPDF.pdf), particularly pages 4-5 about the GMD.  There was considerable discussion both within the task force that created the “Guide” and later on within OLAC about the GMD decision.  Here is what I wrote at the time in explanation.

Please allow me to explain briefly the Task Force's choice of "electronic resource" as the GMD for Playaways.  As is mentioned in Section VII of the draft "Guide," members of the group discussed the GMD question long and hard.  There were excellent arguments on both sides of the GMD divide and when it came down to an actual vote, "electronic resource" won out over "sound recording" only narrowly.  First let's say that any GMD recommendation (in fact, the entire set of guidelines about cataloging Playaways) is an interim solution as we all await the sage proclamations of RDA.  Which will, eventually, solidify into some final form.  And which will, of course, solve all cataloging problems.  (He said with tongue firmly in cheek.)

For the OLAC audience, there is no need to go into the long history of GMDs and their roots in an era when a sound recording was a sound recording was a sound recording and even when a computer file was a computer file was a computer file and the twain did not meet.  That era is long past and no amount of fiddling with AACR2 1.1C is going to resolve any of the GMD's vast and growing limitations.  For better or worse, one upshot of AACR2 1.1C3 is that the GMD "electronic resource" trumps any other GMD when there is a conflict, just as "microform" would trump other GMDs (or the absence of a GMD) in a parallel circumstance.

Playaways are functionally "sound recordings," to be sure, but as resources to be cataloged according to AACR2 they differ in one particularly vital aspect from other things that we've traditionally regarded as "sound recordings" in the GMD sense.  Vinyl discs, CDs, audio cassettes, reel-to-reel tapes, and cylinders were all media that were inserted into, or placed onto, another device to be played and listened to.  By themselves, they were silent and more-or-less inert.

Playaways, on the other hand, are the devices themselves, devices inextricably linked to the proprietary ACELP (Algebraic Code Excited Linear Prediction) files that are embedded within them.  (And which the Playaways folks insist are not hackable and will never be made to be programmable by users.)  We recognize the "sound recording-ness" of the Playaway by using the Sound Recording workform (Types "i" and "j") and AACR2 Chapter 6, among other things.  We recognize its "electronic resource-ness" by using the GMD "electronic resource" and a computer file 006 field, and by referring to AACR2 Chapter 9, among other things.

If you follow the Task Force's guidelines, Playaways will be retrievable in WorldCat regardless of whether you consider them a sound recording or an electronic resource.  Other sorts of sound recordings that we catalog using the Sound Recordings workform, yet consider to have the GMD "electronic resource" under 1.1C3, include streaming audio files and MP3 files.  These are imperfect treatments of complex situations under sometimes antiquated cataloging rules.  But if we can impose just a modicum of order and standardization, we have a better chance of moving into a post-AACR2 cataloging world with bibliographic records we might be able to do something with.

Please believe me when I tell you how difficult a decision it was concerning the GMD, one that we discussed long and hard over several weeks of e-mails.  (It's probably not much of an exaggeration to say that the time we devoted to the GMD question was greater than the time we spent on everything else combined.)  We knew that we'd get a lot of negative feedback about it, but the way the rules are currently written, there didn't seem to be much leeway.

If you make available to your users such resources as MP3 files, streaming audio files, and/or other sorts of remotely-accessed audio files (which should also properly have the GMD "electronic resource" according to the rules, but are no less "sound recordings" in a functional sense than are Playaways), do you find that your users are confused?  Are they similarly confused by the "electronic resource" GMD on a remotely-accessed textual resource that they may be thinking of as being available in print form?  Additionally, many electronic resources such as computer software (including programs and fonts) and numeric data that are stored on such tangible media as CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, and older varieties of floppy discs, would also properly have the GMD “electronic resource”, not only remotely accessed resources.

Since those words were written, the “Playaway View” came into existence, in 2010.  A record for a “Playaway View” would be on the Visual Materials format, Type (Leader/06) coded “g”, TMat (008/33) coded “v”.  Form of Item (Form), which in Visual Materials is 008/29, should be “q” because it is direct electronic (and you’ll notice that “Playaway device” is included in the definition in MARC, http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008v.html).  The Computer File 006 (006/00 coded “m”) should have the File position (006/09) coded “c” for “Representational,” which includes both still and moving images.  I confirmed that several years ago with LC and it is documented in BFAS (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/file.shtm).  The correct GMD remains “[electronic resource]”.  If you are creating original master records for any form of Playaway, please follow this nationally agreed upon standard of “electronic resource” for the GMD.  You absolutely always have the option of using whatever GMD you want, and think will be most useful to your users, for your local editing of the record.