=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:33:54 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "Jean L. Hirons" <jhir@LOC.GOV>
Subject: Corp.main entry & uniform titles
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Colleauges:
In a previous message to this list I said that I would separately
comment on corporate main entry and uniform titles. In this
message I want to address three things: 1) corporate authorship
and main entry for serials; 2) uniform titles for serials created
according to 25.5B to distinguish different serials with the same
title; and 3) uniform titles used to collocate serials for
translations and language editions.
One of the hallmarks of AACR2 is that it provides "an integrated
and standardized framework for the systematic description of all
library materials" (AACR2, preface). This goal of
standardization is carried from Part I into Part II where rule
21.1B2 governs the entry for all types of library materials,
granted with a few specific cases separately accommodated. I have
come to doubt whether this goal is realistic and wonder whether
trying too hard for conformity has meant that some publications
are forced into shoes that just don't fit. Reading Martha Yee's
paper and speaking to other AV experts convinces me that title
main entry is a good thing for this category of publications.
But surely not for classical music, most books, and many serials.
Are there general principles that we can develop that will more
rationally deal with the types of publications that should and
should not be entered under corporate body?
Being a serialist, I have to admit that I've never understood the
problem with the concept of corporate "authorship." Perhaps I
think of "authorship" in a broad sense, but certainly an
organization is the "author" of its annual report. Or at least
it's the only author that anyone really cares about or would
think to search under! So I was relieved to see that no one so
far is calling for doing away with the main entry concept, as has
been suggested so many times in the past. For serials, however,
this is not enough. I was pleased with Hagler's recognition that
"the high incidence of non-distinguishing titling" is a serious
problem for the identification of a work and that the addition of
the corporate body is often the only way in which the work can be
identified. Unlike the earlier rules, AACR2 does not accommodate
generic titles in its rule for corporate body main entry.
AACR2's limitation on corporate body main entry has resulted in a
need to use uniform titles to distinguish different serials with
the same titles. (Some might argue that these aren't really
"uniform titles"; however, we use the same fields and have yet
to come up with a better term.) The code says nothing about what
to do when the qualifier changes, but LCRI 25.5B says to create a
successive entry when a corporate body qualifier changes but not
when the place changes. Thus, we have tended to favor place as a
qualifier, even though we often would prefer the more identifying
corporate body. Our rationale has always been that the uniform
title is only needed to distinguish one serial from another, but
the desire on the part of many is for the uniform title to
identify, not just distinguish. How can a patron pick out of
from a long display of similar titles the one he is seeking when
the qualifier is the place of publication rather than the more
meaningful name of the issuing body?
I've often thought it would just make a lot more sense in such
situations to enter the serial under corporate body to begin with
and forget about the artificial construct of the uniform title in
such cases. Jim Cole recently reminded me of the former rule 6 in
the British text of AACR (1st ed.) that required a corporate main
entry for a serial whose title was generic or included the name
or abbreviation of the name of the issuing body. In an article
he contributed to Serials Librarian, Cole suggests that this is a
viable alternative to the current 21.1B2 and that it be applied
to all publications.
Or, as Hagler discusses, perhaps we should adopt the concept of
"key title" as defined in ISBD(S) and used in conjunction with
the ISSN. The key title is a constructed title meant to identify
the serial. We currently construct and give both key and uniform
titles in our records, which many times are identical to one
another. This is one redundancy that we need to eliminate.
The problem is that AACR2's emphasis on the nature of the
contents, while ideal perhaps, is just not practical. We need to
be able to identify the serial from an "entry" for purposes of
citations, online search displays, links, and added entries
without having to look at the entire bibliographic record. We now
have six ways of doing this, depending on the situation: title
(245); corporate body and title (110/245); uniform title (130)
(per 25.5B); uniform title and title (130/245) for translations,
language editions, and legal works; corporate body and uniform
title (110/240); and key title (222). Surely we can simplify
this!
An unrelated but long time problem for serials catalogers has
been the required use of uniform titles for language editions and
translations according to (25.3C, 25.5C1). While we understand
the usefulness of such collocation for literary works, most
serials are a different breed altogether. Does a reader seeking
an article in English from a translated Russian journal really
want to look up the journal under the Russian title? The problem
for serials catalogers is that the original title can change (as
happened recently with many of the former Soviet journals), while
the translated title the same. A new entry must be made based on
the change in uniform title, even though the title under which it
is probably checked in and most likely to be sought has not
changed.
Is the work and its collocation really so important in such
situations? Are there better ways of bringing them together,
such as linking fields (765 and 767) which can hot link to the
related record if one should have the original in one's library?
In FRBR terms, when is the work foremost and when is the
expression more important? Is it always in the best interests of
our users to keep all aspects of the work together?
Jean Hirons
Acting CONSER Coordinator
LC
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:55:18 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Bibliographic relationships
Comments: cc: autocat@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
The newly posted paper for the future of AACR conference, Bibliographic
relationships by Sherry L. Vellucci, clocks in at 35 pages. Vellucci
rarely uses a two syllable word where a four syllable one is available
with the same meaning, so these 35 pages require careful reading.
She lays a firm historical foundation, beginning with Panizzi's and
Cutter's purposes of the catalogue, and continuing with Tillett's and
later studies of bibliographic relationships. Occasionally one feels
like faulting her, as she did one IFLA study, for being too theoretical.
But then she pulls one back down to earth with some actual examples of
authority records.
Reading this paper is made easier for me in that she uses "main and
added entries" (p.17) to mean access points as opposed to the whole
record so entered, which is the way those terms are used by my clients.
The distinction already made in other papers between work and item is
here extended to three levels: work, item or publication, and copy. She
reports studies which describe as many as four levels. The idea of work
authority records for all works is supported (also called access control
records (p.24)).
My major concern with the universal application of uniform titles is our
clients' rejection of titles in a language different from the text.
They will accept uniform titles in 730, but not 130 or 240. I don't
recall ever having the same text in two languages in the collection of
any of our 50 special library clients. In collocating for the global
bibliographic database, the requirements of specific libraries should
not be neglected. (Law firms whose working language is English even
want English parallel title transcribed first for bi and multi lingual
works, regardless of the order of languages on the title page.)
Describing present methods of expressing relationships, she mentions dash
entries (p.15). We abandoned dash entries, even for cards, when we
adopted MARC. Is anyone still using them? On the other hand, the
listing of titles under an entry in the book catalogues we print does
look a bit like dash entries used to look. (Those titles are, by the
way, a mixture of titles for which that entry is the main entry or an
added entry. The same is true of author search OPAC displays in the PC
based systems we support.)
She proposes consistent treatment of parts, as opposed to direct entry of
parts with distinctive titles. Our clients would not accept this. They
very much dislike 245$a$p titles. They often have us change the 245$a to
a 440, and the 245$p to 245$a. Aren't all titles issued in series, parts
of a larger whole? Where would the line be drawn, if not at distinctive
title as at present? This suggestion suggests a too long absence from
dealing with the consumers of catalogue records one creates. The series
entry can collocate the whole work, not the item or copy main entries.
She wisely gives attention to the interrelationship of rules and MARC,
the impact of the globalization of the bibliographic data base, the
possible impact of hypertext, the fact that catalogues may describe and
give access to remote resources, and the design and structure of
catalogues as related to the code.
Her four concluding principles are that the bibliographic record should
identify bibliographic relationships (independent and dependent); these
relationships should be reflected by linkages; multi level description
(work, item, copy) should be provided; like bibliographical relationships
should be treated consistently. Both identification and linkages should
be bidrectional.
The way 780/785 are now used would seem to me to come closest to her
ideal of bidirectional linkages.
Yee's point that more than bidirectional linkages are needed to unite
serials which have gone through several title changes was not picked up.
Yee's statement that change in authorship may not signal a new work
might lead to the collocating of the successive editions of
standard legal texts with differing authorship statements in the
edition area, but she does not specifically mention that problem, as
she does the successive title change problem for serials. Of the papers
so for, Yee's seems to me to be the most anchored in actual experience
creating records for patrons.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 09:27:16 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Component parts and successive parts
Comments: To: G.Cornelius@NHM.AC.UK
Comments: cc: autocat@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
In-Reply-To: <199708020358.UAA11263@bmd2.baremetal.com>
Gillian Corenlius remarked:
>Currently our library uses UKMARC and each level of a multi-level work (with
>it's corresponding statement of responsibility) is usually entered in field
>248.
I could get excited about 248 as opposed to 245$p. It would give
more flexibility in mapping, e.g., 248 alone on circulation card and
pocket labels, since currently one usually doesn't get as far 245$p
before running out of room.
(Most code discussions seem to proceed without reference to our very
mundane daily concerns.)
For those of us a bit awed at the concept of work authority records
(doubling our work load we fear), how about collocating successive
serial records either by making 780/785 repeating for all past and
future titles, or by introducing 244 for later titles and reactivating
247 for former titles? Or would it be considered wrong to use a 2XX
field for a related work, since all related works are still only in 7XX?
If we are to have a work authority record for the whole span of a
serial through multiple title changes, it would seem to me that record
would have to have something in the way of multiple title fields for the
successive titles. It seems to me that the same serial under a
different title, while not a constituent part (except in the work
record?), is a bit more closely related than other 7XX "related works".
Mac
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
Homepage: http://www.islandnet.com/~jelrod/mac.html
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 22:03:09 UT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Thomas Brenndorfer <ThomasB@MSN.COM>
Subject: Some ideas for the ideal catalog
Having mused over some of the conference papers, there are some thoughts that
I felt I should tie together and see if they make sense to others.
The discussion of authority records for all works would seem to mean that
three types of authority records would result: works, authors, and subject
headings. A key question would be how to tie them all together using rules
that are equally applicable in a card catalog format and in an on-line
environment.
The list of works would in some ways resemble a name-title section of a card
catalog. These would be some principles:
- The concept of main entry as the primary collocating device would remain
here, as one must always account for a single entry arrangement, such as
physical arrangement on the shelf.
- The list of works would really be a list of "uniform headings for works," in
either main entry title or name-title form.
- Cross-references would have to replace the concept of simple title added
entries right across the board. This would be the sharpest departure from the
card catalog design. All variant titles would point to a uniform title or
name-title, which in a card catalog would require a trip to a different
section of the catalog to see the full record. In an on-line environment, the
resulting flexibility for display designs could be enormously beneficial. For
example, common titles (such as "Annual report") would be split into mutliple
SEE references pointing to the respective name-title headings.
- Expand the use of qualifiers. For example, all works which are series should
have the qualifier (Series), even in the event of no conflict. The same can be
said for serials, television programs, and works originally in a different
language. In MARC, the qualifiers should be in a separate subfield, so they
can removed from display as appropriate.
- Subsets of this list of works could be created in an on-line environment,
such a a list of series, serials, videos, etc. Having the qualifier sheared
off for these subsets would be beneficial.
While the display may seem unusual at first, in that name-titles will file
alongside titles, the benefits seem to be quite substantial. The actual
headings for works could be highlighted, put in bold, etc.
Under authors and subjects, the card catalog immediately points to the main
entry form of the name of the work, or the name + 245 form if the on-line form
is flexible enough. For authors, this is not sufficient, because all
references to variant titles for which the author may have been responsible,
even in a secondary capacity, would be lost. Perhaps in an on-line display,
under the author, we could construct a complete subset of all the titles found
in the list of works, with appropriate cross-references. A patron could scan
the list, and if he or she only knows a variant form of a title, then that
should appear alphabetically in the list pointing to an established heading
for the work. This would make the most sense when scanning for titles
translated from another language.
Once a work is selected, then what? This is where Martha Yee's table of
relationships comes into play. Under the selected work would be a set of
options:
Edtions of ...
Works containing ...
Performances of ...
Works about ...
Other works related to ...
Added to this could be a complete breakdown of the title changes of a serial,
with volume and date information somehow incorporated.
For example, someone searching a serial title would look in the list of works.
There might be a cross-reference to an established heading for the serial
(which may be an early title bearing no resemblance to the searched title).
Once the work is selected, the table of relationships would reproduce a list
of all known titles that the serial may have been catalogued under, including
the one for which the patron searched. All other relationships would also be
mapped into this table. Holdings records could be attached to the authority
record for the work, and be mirrored from each different title under which the
serial has been catalogued.
Reproducing such a system in a card catalog may be possible (although it would
seem to me that a proliferation of cards would result). For an on-line
environment, I can only see an enormous increase in the usability of the
catalog.
This is how I see things at this point:
1. List of authority-controlled names of works (really all titles
cross-referenced to established forms, with name-titles to fulfill the
persistent need for single-entry collocation)
------------>
Table of relationships under each work
(The list of works could be broken into different subsets in an on-line
environment.)
2. List of authority-controlled names of authors, corporate bodies, etc.
Cross-references from variant forms of the names would appear here.
------------> list of all titles associated with the author, displayed in list
of works form
---------------------------> table of relationships under each work
3. List of authority-controlled subject headings (including works and authors,
but with a single point of control to ensure consistency). Cross-references,
etc., for subject headings would appear here.
------------> list of all titles associated with the subject, displayed in
list of works form
----------------------------> table of relationships under each work
The simplest arrangement would in fact be the list of works. The author and
subject lists would introduce another layer in the hierarchy, as authors and
subjects would have their own authority records and associated
cross-references. Perhaps a superset of all authority records could be created
for technical services staff. This would be useful for conflict elimination,
and to have a centralized place for names and titles also appearing as subject
headings.
The subject heading organization seems a little haphazard, but I think it may
be appropriate to be directed to the actual texts of works held in the library
when searching the title as a subject.
Tom Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
thomasb@msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:24:03 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Some ideas for the ideal catalog
Comments: To: ThomasB@MSN.COM
In-Reply-To: <UPMAIL09.199708022203520828@msn.com>
Thomas,
Thank you for helping us visualize what a catalogue using work
authorities might be. I'm having some difficulty translating this into
how a printed book catalogue would look - the form of catalogue used by
about one third of our customers. Multiple indentations eat up paper.
If *each* item catalogued in the library is also to have a work record,
there must be, I think, a way of automatically abstracting it from the
record for the item if that item represents the first time the work is
catalogued. Or conversely, a way of automatically carrying the
information from the work record forward into the record for the item.
Creating *two* records for each item would overburden already
overburdened cataloguers.
OPAC software must be flexible enough to allow the suppression
elements not wanted in displays. For example, monolingual special
collections would *not* accept the display of titles in languages
other than the language of the item text. The collocating function is
not required if the library only owns texts in one language.
>The discussion of authority records for all works would seem to mean that
>three types of authority records would result: works, authors, and subject
Perhaps works, persons, and subjects. Not all persons are authors. And
not all personal added entries are for authors. I assume "persons"
includes both individuals and organizations.
>- Expand the use of qualifiers. For example, all works which are series should
>have the qualifier (Series), even in the event of no conflict.
Hmmm. Some libraries catalogue a "series" as a serial, while
others catalogue it as monographs in a series. Just yesterday I did
what quacked like an annual serial, but then added individual
distinctive titles and authors after the first several numbers had been
published.
>Holdings records could be attached to the authority
>record for the work, and be mirrored from each different title under which the
>serial has been catalogued.
I would seem better to me to have the holdings statements associated
with the item records. How would you distinguish between the print,
electronic, and microform versions in a unified work record? Somehow
holdings attached to a work authority record just doesn't fly for me.
The work authority record acting as a device to pull together the
holdings of the serial under different titles and in different formats
would seem a better way to go.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 11:15:13 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: JSC conference homepages
Comments: cc: autocat@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
An increasing number of people are asking me off list how to access the
future of AACR conference papers.
Is the general information page not linked to the papers page and vice
versa? I would gather not from the questions I am getting. (Perhaps
here is an instance where Vellucci's bidirectional linkages are needed.)
Perhaps the urls could be reposted occasionally to autocat and other
lists for people who were on holiday when they were originally given.
Broad discussion seems vital to me. If the implications of some of the
papers are carried through, the changes created by AACR2 will seem quite
minor. They are talking about the first major reformation of the way
catalogues are created since Panizzi. If we are caught unaware, we will
only have ourselves to blame.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 11:26:51 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Impact of work authority records
The more I think about the implications of work authority records, the
more worried I get. We have about 300,000 bibliographic records in our
working file at the moment. Allowing for successive entry serial
records, and successive editions of titles, I would expect we would need
about 200,000 additional records if we were to have work authority
records. (We simply don't have translations.)
How this would impact on what we would deliver our customers I can't
imagine. At present only a tiny minority of our customers have
authority records as part of their OPACs. We have name and
subject authorities here, and use them to create cross references in
book catalogues, and of course to control the headings in our own
records. But by and large they do not migrate to customer catalogues.
I suspect the same is true for most libraries with PC based OPACs.
Much more helpful to us would be a way of *reducing* rather than
*increasing* records. Customers complain about what they consider
redundant records. If work records could *replace* item records,
perhaps with repeating collations and (in MARC records) 008 and 006
broken out into separate fixed fields (as is the case in Catss), we
could combine many of our item records. For example, multiple 300s
would allow the records for the sound cassette and sound disc of the
same music recording to be combined; the records for the film reel, VHS
video cassette, Beta video cassette, and disc, of the same feature film
to be combined; and the records for the print and microform of the same
serial to be combined. In all of the above cases, the records are
identical except for the microform gmd, collation (not seen at every
entry point), and fixed fields (never seen).
If this avenue is to be explored, MARC revision *must* be discussed in
tandem with code revision. We simply can't continue to have these two
basic standards develop independently of each other.
In sum, I think we need to explore reducing the number of records in our
files, not expanding them by yet another layer.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:32:35 +1000
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Impact of work authority records
In-Reply-To: <7MK5zEJ3B0MD092yn@slc.bc.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
"Work authority records" would only be useful if a particular catalogue
contained more than one record for a work. I would guess that would me
that in a catalogue of 300,000 records, you might only need 50,000 work
authority records at the most.
A cataloguing system which had such records would need to do a couple of
things:
(1) Warn the cataloguer when it look as if two different bib. records
involved the same work -- e.g., if the had an author and a title in
common -- so that the cataloguer could exxamine the records.
(2) If the catalogue was obtaining bib. records from a system like
OCLC, only download the work authority records for which the catalogue
had two or more corresponding bibliographic records. This should (at
least in concept) be easy to implement as an automatic process in the
centralised cataloguing source, if that source had kept a record of what
bib. records had been sent to the catalogue.
Giles
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
##
The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
-- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> The more I think about the implications of work authority records, the
> more worried I get. We have about 300,000 bibliographic records in our
> working file at the moment. Allowing for successive entry serial
> records, and successive editions of titles, I would expect we would need
> about 200,000 additional records if we were to have work authority
> records. (We simply don't have translations.)
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 15:55:33 +0100
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Robert Cunnew <robert@CUNNEW.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Bibliographic relationships
MIME-Version: 1.0
I found Sherry Vellucci's paper on bibliographic relationships rather
alarming. I would be amongst the first to insist that catalogues should
rigorously and consistently reflect the different kinds of relationship
between works, but the following points seem equally important:
1. In my experience the majority of monographs are one-off
manifestations of single works, never to be repeated. Are we in danger
of creating a cataloguing sledgehammer to crack a bibliographic nut? To
change the metaphor, are we sure that the big "work" in multiple
editions is not going to become a dinosaur?
2. Most OPACs cannot cope properly with the complexity of AACR2. This is
particulary true of Web-based OPACs: take a look at how the LC
experimental OPAC displays uniform titles. Isn't it a bit soon to be
suggesting that we increase the burden on OPACs?
3. MARC is one way of implementing AACR. It is not synonymous with AACR
and there are many smaller libraries which do not use it.
4. Library users are frequently baffled by catalogue entries and the
more we depart from established practice in bibliographic citation the
worse this will be.
5. AACR is difficult to apply and even national bibliographies are
riddled with errors. We are not going to be getting more staff with
higher qualifications. Shouldn't we be thinking of making it *easier*
to apply?
--
Robert Cunnew
Librarian, Chartered Insurance Institute, London
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:17:48 +1000
Reply-To: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Bibliographic relationships
In-Reply-To: <abHBkBAlvJ5zEwOg@cunnew.demon.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Robert Cunnew wrote:
> I found Sherry Vellucci's paper on bibliographic relationships rather
> alarming. I would be amongst the first to insist that catalogues should
> rigorously and consistently reflect the different kinds of relationship
> between works, but the following points seem equally important:
>
> 1. In my experience the majority of monographs are one-off
> manifestations of single works, never to be repeated. Are we in danger
> of creating a cataloguing sledgehammer to crack a bibliographic nut? To
> change the metaphor, are we sure that the big "work" in multiple
> editions is not going to become a dinosaur?
It may be true that most of the works in a library are one-off
manifestations; but I don't think that the same is true as a proportion
of what users look for. There is likely to be a strong correlation
between demand for a work and the number of different manifestations of a
work. This is likely to remain true of mayerial published in physical
manifestations. It may not be true of Internet resources, which
generally appear in only one copy -- very few sites are mirrored
somewhere else.
> 2. Most OPACs cannot cope properly with the complexity of AACR2. This is
> particulary true of Web-based OPACs: take a look at how the LC
> experimental OPAC displays uniform titles. Isn't it a bit soon to be
> suggesting that we increase the burden on OPACs?
The Web OPACs that I have seen are just Web front-ends to a normal OPAC
database, and sometimes don't even have the same functionality as their
text-based counterparts. It should be possible to move a lot further
away from the older model.
You could have a system with one Web page for each bibliographic and
authority record in the tradition MARC-based OPAC, all linked to each
other with hyperlinks corresponding with access points, references and
tracings. On top of this could be a key-word based search engine, which
would give priority to authority records over bibliographic records (so
that when you looked for "Mozart", you would find the authority records
for W.A. Mozart before all the hundreds of bib. records). If the system
had "work authority records", these would be intermediate in position
between the author pages and the manifestation pages, and would have an
intermediate priority (after authors, and before manifestations) in
key-word searches.
Constructing these Web pages from MARC records would be the sort of task
that could be carried out by a computer program, and then tidied up
manually.
> 3. MARC is one way of implementing AACR. It is not synonymous with AACR
> and there are many smaller libraries which do not use it.
Agreed. In addition, there are several dialects of MARC that each
implement AACR differently.
> 4. Library users are frequently baffled by catalogue entries and the
> more we depart from established practice in bibliographic citation the
> worse this will be.
The catalogue display needs to explain a lot of thinngs to the catalogue
user. The traditional 3x5 card display includes a lot of information is
a very limited space, so that experienced users can identify what the
various parts mean; but I am not convinced that most users unerstand all
of the information there or how they can use it.
> 5. AACR is difficult to apply and even national bibliographies are
> riddled with errors. We are not going to be getting more staff with
> higher qualifications. Shouldn't we be thinking of making it *easier*
> to apply?
The first priority should be to make life easier for the catalogue user
-- to "save the time of the reader", in the words of Ranganathan. The
second priority should be to do this in a cost-effective way.
These priorities should mean that AACR should be as easy as possible to
apply, given that it has to describe a complex bibliographic universe.
And these should also mean that errors should be minimised, since they
waste the time of both catalogue users and cataloguers. However, are the
errors caused by AACR being hard to use? I suspecct there are other
causes, including some cost-cutting by library managers.
Giles
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
##
The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
-- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:20:14 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Component parts and successive parts
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
"Mac" wrote:
>
> I could get excited about 248 as opposed to 245$p. It would give
> more flexibility in mapping, e.g., 248 alone on circulation card and
> pocket labels, since currently one usually doesn't get as far 245$p
> before running out of room.
>
But where is this better than (his earlier suggestion) turning 245$p
into 245$a and 100/245$a into a 700$a$t?
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 00:16:18 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Component parts and successive parts
Comments: To: EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE
In-Reply-To: <65FAB4412D0@buch.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de>
Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE> wrote:
>> I could get excited about 248 as opposed to 245$p.
>But where is this better than (his earlier suggestion) turning 245$p
>into 245$a and 100/245$a into a 700$a$t?
It avoids a duplicate entry under the 100.
It would also be better when the 245$p/248 title was not distinctive
enough to function well as a 245$a. (I am *very* opposed to Vellucci's
suggestion that all parts, whether with distinctive titles or not, be
entered subordinately.)
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 23:50:52 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Impact of work authority records
Comments: To: ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9708040900.D5056-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Giles said:
>"Work authority records" would only be useful if a particular catalogue
>contained more than one record for a work. I would guess that would me
>that in a catalogue of 300,000 records, you might only need 50,000 work
>authority records at the most.
Hagler advocates making a work authority record for *every* work,
whether there are multiple items of the work or not. What you
propose would be like only making authority records for authors or
subjects if cross references are needed. Some libraries do this, but
most libraries have authorities for all headings, cross references
needed or not, if they have authorities at all.
Certainly creating work authority records only when there were two or
more instances of the work would greatly reduce the impact on work load.
About 50% of our cataloguing is original. Neither OCLC, RLIN nor Catss
have records for much of the specialized material acquired by our
libraries at the time the material is acquired. I am sure there are
other special libraries for which this is the case.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:17:04 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Component parts and successive parts
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
J. McRee Elrod <mac@SLC.BC.CA> wrote:
> Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE> wrote:
>
> >> I could get excited about 248 as opposed to 245$p.
>
> >But where is this better than (his earlier suggestion) turning 245$p
> >into 245$a and 100/245$a into a 700$a$t?
>
> It avoids a duplicate entry under the 100.
>
But that, surely, is only a card argument?
> It would also be better when the 245$p/248 title was not distinctive
> enough to function well as a 245$a. (I am *very* opposed to Vellucci's
> suggestion that all parts, whether with distinctive titles or not, be
> entered subordinately.)
>
Whereas we (in Germany) would welcome this very much since it would
bring our separate galaxies closer. Here, the utilities' databases have
more functionality, and from the view of cooperative cataloging and resource
sharing, USMARC databases look like quite a bit of a mess when it comes
to series and multiparts. We want all holdings for all items attached
to the right level, and as little duplication as possible.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 12:05:44 METDST
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Relationships: what can be done now
Relationships : What can we expect, what can we do?
Ground-breaking work has been done, by Vellucci, Tillett, Smiraglia,
Leazer and others, to shed light on the nature and the manifold aspects
of bibliographic relationships, and the requirements of catalog users
and of consumers of bibliographic records have been analyzed.
Whatever the type of relationship, the important practical
consideration is, how can we provide devices like access points, index
displays, hot links, or collocation lists to enable catalog users to navigate
cobwebs of related records. Chances are poor for relationships expressed
only in notes - nobody on this list needs to be told about the
inadequacies of keyword access. Of course, it depends largely on the
database software, but no software can be intelligent enough to turn
contents notes into name-title access points of the same quality as
from a 100/240 combination for example. So the rules have to tell us
in what way to express relationships in the record so as to ensure
proper access points can be generated.
"Relational" databases are not the answer for a proper handling of
bibliographic relations, although the very name seems to imply
that. Sherry L. Vellucci draws attention to studies (Green,1996) that
dispel this popular misconception (on p.29 of her paper).
In this posting, I'm not trying to theorize about what AACR3 and a
revamped USMARC should be like. I'm asking, instead, what can be done
with present-day data and existing software. For these will be around for
a while before a kinder and gentler bibliographic universe opens up.
As of now, all relationships expressed through the presence of a 240 or a
700$a$t or 600$a$t can be turned into access points to support collocation of
related publications ("manifestations of expressions of works"). In Tillett's
terminology, the relationship types of "equivalence", "derivative",
"descriptive" (as long as reflected in a 6XX) and "sequential" can thereby
be collocated in a browse list. And here, it may well be asked if existing
software is already making the most out of these fields as they are. And
here, more than anywhere, keyword access is not the answer.
Allow me a little aside here:
From what I read, the AACR Future Development papers say precious little
about what links should be presented in what ways at the user interface
of OPACs. Is it all to be trusted to the vendors? That's the tradition, as
we all know, but will the Toronto Conference indeed not concern itself with
questions like what indexes a catalog should have, how names, titles,
keywords, dates, place names etc. should be treated when indexed,
how a brief entry should be constructed for the presentation of result
sets, in what ways collocation might be achieved in the online environment,
whether to keep up ISBD formatting as a standard or to favor labeled displays,
and so on and so further. I mean, the details of cards had been nailed down
in the code to the last dot, but what about OPAC displays? Is it not about
time to think about guidelines or minimal standards here, at least?
But now, it gets practical.
Having been involved with questions of improving international exchange,
I have done some experimenting, mostly with music records, to see and
to demonstrate what can or might be done with USMARC data as they are.
Look at this, it is a screenful from an alphabetical uniform title index,
which can be browsed up and down, line by line:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, clarinet, k anh 90;score
1 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, horn, k 407 <andante>;score arr
6==>mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, horn, k 407;rec
5 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, horn, k 407;score
1 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, horn, k 407;score arr
23 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, piano, k 452;rec
4 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, piano, k 452;score
1 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, piano, k 452;score arr
1 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, piano, k 478;rec
2 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, piano, oboe, clarinet, horn, bassoon
1 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, strings, select;score
1 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, violins, k 406;score arr
3 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, violins, k 515;rec
5 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, violins, k 516;rec
3 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, violins, k 593;rec
1 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, violins, k 593;score
2 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, violins, k 614;rec
1 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, violins, k 614;score
4 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, violins, no 4;rec arr
3 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, violins;rec
4 mozart, wolfgang amadeus: quintets, violins;score
New search term? Just type it! [Sh+F8] = Extended index"
[Enter] = Title display [F1] = HELP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This index was composed by appropriate software out of unadulterated USMARC
data, using the contents of 100/240, 600$a$t and 700$a$t, plus several
other subfields.
(Nothing new involved here, no "work authority records" of any kind!)
To be more precise (since not everything is apparent here), the following
subfields have been indexed, in this syntax:
$m, $n, $s, $k, <$p>;medium ($l)
with "medium" = "score", "rec" or "book".
If you now press [Enter], it brings up the first of the records belonging to
the line the arrow points to:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus:
[Quintets, horn, strings, K. 407, E flat major.]
[This appears as part of:] (press '0': main record '2': related records)
The Art of the French horn sound recording.
[S.l.] : Everest, [197-]. - 1 sound disc : 33 1/3rpm, stereo.
Dennis Brain, horn; Max Salpeter, violin; Cyril Preedy, piano (in the...
[Subjects:]
1. Trios (Piano, horn, violin). 2. Quintets (Horn, violin, violas (2),
violoncello). 3. Horn and piano music
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(BTW, seeing a record display, you can press F7 to see all index entries
belonging to it.)
This gets us to the whole/part relationship: in fact, what we did was to
extract all 700$a$t fields and make 100/240 combinations out of them, embed
these into a basic record frame and then link these part records with the
main (container) record using its control number. This way, more or less,
every work listed in the contents note gets its own little analytic record.
If you press '2', the index is displayed at the related 100/240 combination.
If you press '0' as the display suggests, the programm collocates the related
main record with all subordinate records and you see this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brain, Dennis:
The Art of the French horn sound recording.
[S.l.] : Everest, [197-]. - 1 sound disc : 33 1/3rpm, stereo.
Dennis Brain, horn; Max Salpeter, violin; Cyril Preedy, piano (in the...
The 3d work originally for viola da gamba and continuo
CONTENTS: Brahms. Horn trio in E flat, op. 40.--Mozart. Horn quintet in E
flat, K. 407.--Marais, M. Le Basque
[Subjects:]
1. Trios (Piano, horn, violin). 2. Quintets (Horn, violin, violas (2),
violoncello). 3. Horn and piano music
[Added entries:]
I. Salpeter, Max. -- prf.
II. Preedy, Cyril. -- prf.
III. Grainger, Eileen. -- prf.
IV. Parry, Wilfrid. -- prf.
V. Carter String Trio. -- prf.
VI. Brahms, Johannes -- Trio -- piano, violin, horn -- op. 40 -- E
flat major.
VII. Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus -- Quintets -- horn, strings -- K. 407
E flat major.
VIII. Marais, Marin -- Pieces de violes -- 4e livre. -- 1er partie. -- 39-
40; -- arr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, the Brahms, Mozart and Marais pieces are not really part of the main
record any more but added to this display by way of linkage. It looks
like the complete record before it was cut up.
(This cutting up is not really necessary for the indexing, but we did it
for other reasons: to demonstrate whole-part linking.)
The real displays are more instructive (on a PC screen) because of color.
If you want to see more, you can telnet into this database:
telnet 134.169.20.3
login: opac
password: opac
mm beethov (or any other name, like mm copland )
(that's the command to access the MarcMusic database)
the index will be displayed at "beethoven"
Then, follow instructions (and use '?' for help).
To get out, press 'x' on any title display, then 'y' to confirm.
There are more indexes. The instructions tell you how to get into them.
At least look at the anyword index (6) if you are a keyword addict.
There are no authority records yet in this database, hence no references
in the index. A name authority record would generate index entries like
cajkowskij, petr iljic -> tchaikosky, peter ilich
(This single one is present, you can check out how it works.)
It appears that for OPAC users, well-designed browseable indexes are one
way to make relationships visible and navigable. Using existing uniform
title data, one can already do a decent job. Some formal improvement of
the 240 and 700 subfields would get us further, and provision of more such
fields for cases where presently none are prescribed by the code.
The biggest issue may well be (as J. McRee Elrod indicated) the rules for
the uniform title as such (240$a and 700$t), esp. with international
exchange in mind and monolingual audiences to consider.
A structured, browseable index has a welcome side-effect: it makes all
those little inaccuracies of spelling and punctuation both very apparent
but also less harmful (the example shown above has very few flaws though).
MARC data tend to be less than perfect where indexing had not originally
been intended or did not appear feasible. This way of indexing can still
provide useful relationship collocation.
The term "browseable index" is used here as opposed to internal indexes
which cannot be looked at but which are used implicitly by "find" commands.
Well, just compare the above with mere keyword access where you don't
even ever get to see an alphabetical index display. (There is, however,
an "anyword" index as well in this database, and you can browse it too.)
The database has some 40.000 records, so there are examples for just
about everything, at least for the music cataloger. But look at "shakespeare"
and "macbeth" too.
On the subject of whole/part relationships there's a bit more to say.
But that's to be another posting.
Regards, B.E.
P.S.
J. McRee Elrod wrote: [about relationships and work authorities]
> If this avenue is to be explored, MARC revision *must* be discussed in
> tandem with code revision. We simply can't continue to have these two
> basic standards develop independently of each other.
If this were indeed still the case, as I'm convinced it isn't, it would
constitute a decent scandal. Conceptually independent of each other
though these standards may have been conceived and may still be viewed by
some theoretically inclined people, they are in actual fact inextricably
intertwined. And who is using MARC for anything else but AACR records?
Bernhard Eversberg
Head of Library Computing
Universitaetsbibliothek Braunschweig
Germany
B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:05:23 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Redundancy in bibliographic records
Comments: To: EV@buch.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de
In-Reply-To: <66198EE0566@buch.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de>
Concerning have a 7XX which duplicates the 1XX, you asked:
>But that, surely, is only a card argument?
It is even worse for COM and printed book catalogues than for a card
catalogue. The library world is not universally OPAC. Generally
speaking, I think we should attempt to move away from redundancy in
bibliographic records. One way to do that is to stop deconstructing the
record, display the ISBD as a unit, and without labels, as we did in
the card catalogue. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean it
should be done, e.g., deconstruct a bibliographic record and label its
parts.
Your comments on the need to have code standards for OPAC displays were
excellent, I thought. Not only should the code and MARC not be
discussed in isolation from each other, but bibliographic record
standards should not be be created in isolation from standards for the
catalogues in which they are to appear.
This sort of practicality has so far not characterized most of the
papers posted for the Toronto conference.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 16:11:03 UT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Thomas Brenndorfer <ThomasB@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Some ideas for the ideal catalog
-----Original Message-----
From: International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 1997 4:24 PM
To: AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: Some ideas for the ideal catalog
Thomas,
Thank you for helping us visualize what a catalogue using work
authorities might be. I'm having some difficulty translating this into
how a printed book catalogue would look - the form of catalogue used by
about one third of our customers. Multiple indentations eat up paper.
If *each* item catalogued in the library is also to have a work record,
there must be, I think, a way of automatically abstracting it from the
record for the item if that item represents the first time the work is
catalogued. Or conversely, a way of automatically carrying the
information from the work record forward into the record for the item.
Creating *two* records for each item would overburden already
overburdened cataloguers.
[]
****
I have always viewed bibliographic records as quasi-authority records. At this
level, for works with only one published item, few changes would have to be
made to AACR bibliographic records, it seems to me. For MARC, it would make
more sense to have indicator values set up to create a true cross-referencing
pattern for titles that mimic the author and subject authority indexes.
Perhaps what is needed are indepedent values for different output devices.
Currently, some indicator values in MARC have meanings geared for card
catalogs (the 1st indicator for 245 for example). Why not leave these, but
have different values geared for online displays?
Today, MARC seems little more than a printer command language. Online
advantages such as keyword or control number searches seem to be constructed
in an ad hoc and haphazard fashion. Some collocation functions have completely
disappeared.
It would behoove the powers that be to make AACR an "output neutral" code. Or,
at the very least, make provisions for the different logistical and logical
requirements of card catalogs vs. online catalogs.
******
OPAC software must be flexible enough to allow the suppression
elements not wanted in displays. For example, monolingual special
collections would *not* accept the display of titles in languages
other than the language of the item text. The collocating function is
not required if the library only owns texts in one language.
[]
******
Once work records are required, why not establish layers of authorized forms?
For example, have the original language form followed immediately by a local
language form. The second form could display as a qualifier, or it could
replace the original form altogether in displays (although not in the
electronic work authority record). The ideal form would marry universal
bibliographic control with local bibliographic control, with no need to
obliterate one for the other.
******
>The discussion of authority records for all works would seem to mean that
>three types of authority records would result: works, authors, and subject
Perhaps works, persons, and subjects. Not all persons are authors. And
not all personal added entries are for authors. I assume "persons"
includes both individuals and organizations.
[]
******
I prefer "names" to "persons." Unfortunately, "names" could also mean "names
of works" as in the LC name authority file, which include persons and works.
******
>- Expand the use of qualifiers. For example, all works which are series
should
>have the qualifier (Series), even in the event of no conflict.
Hmmm. Some libraries catalogue a "series" as a serial, while
others catalogue it as monographs in a series. Just yesterday I did
what quacked like an annual serial, but then added individual
distinctive titles and authors after the first several numbers had been
published.
[]
*******
Series headings would appear as work records, but I suppose work records
should be similar enough to bibliographic records to allow for quick
conversion. By conversion, I mean changing descriptive elements such as
collocation and how holdings records are attached. Or how a "table of
relationships" is set up after the work is selected. In an online environment,
one should, through a table of relationships, find all separately catalogued
items if the series work record is selected, and also find all parts of the
series if the work record for a part is selected. There is no compelling
reason why a card catalog arrangement should significantly change from current
standards with regard to series-- this should be a coding issue in MARC
standards.
On a related note, there is already a rudimentary hierarchy of established
work headings in a bibliographic record: 240 --> 245 --> 246. The heading for
a physical item would always be constructed out of the title proper (field
245), and a list of these headings should always be the final result of
searching. What I would like to see is the simple concept of a "heading"
enacted in full. Why not have the heading (i.e., title or name-title) be a
distinctive, self-contained unit at the top of the record, instead of
hopelessly mangled with the ISBD descriptive record? If truncated forms are
required to make the data fit on a catalog card, then that should be the
exception, not the rule.
*********
>Holdings records could be attached to the authority
>record for the work, and be mirrored from each different title under which
the
>serial has been catalogued.
I would seem better to me to have the holdings statements associated
with the item records. How would you distinguish between the print,
electronic, and microform versions in a unified work record? Somehow
holdings attached to a work authority record just doesn't fly for me.
The work authority record acting as a device to pull together the
holdings of the serial under different titles and in different formats
would seem a better way to go.
[]
******
Holdings records should still be attached to bibliographic records. However,
in an on-line environment, there is no reason why a grouped function could not
be allowed. Under the work record, one should be able to tap into all
associated holdings, with the list arranged by the heading of each
bibliographic item (i.e., name + title proper). Currently, I find checking
holdings under each successive entry for a serial to be a real bother. Why not
a master grouping >>option<< under a work authority record?
Tom Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
thomasb@msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 21:02:02 +0100
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Robert Cunnew <robert@CUNNEW.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Bibliographic relationships
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9708041341.J5056-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <Pine.3.89.9708041341.J5056-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>,
Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU> writes
>
>These priorities should mean that AACR should be as easy as possible to
>apply, given that it has to describe a complex bibliographic universe.
>And these should also mean that errors should be minimised, since they
>waste the time of both catalogue users and cataloguers. However, are the
>errors caused by AACR being hard to use? I suspecct there are other
>causes, including some cost-cutting by library managers.
>
Giles, I think many errors *are* caused by the complexity of AACR and
I'm not convinced we need all that complexity. We certainly don't need
more. As for cost cutting: if cataloguers are less qualified or have
less time to attend to detail, isn't this something that code revisers
will need to take into account?
Thanks for your comments.
--
Robert Cunnew
Librarian, Chartered Insurance Institute, London
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:53:56 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "David P. Miller" <dmiller@CURRY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bibliographic relationships
Robert Cunnew wrote (in part):
"As for cost cutting: if cataloguers are less qualified or have
less time to attend to detail, isn't this something that code revisers
will need to take into account?"
As the conversations on code revision proceed, this is the kind of
question that's important to consider. I would ask the conference to
consider to what degree specific sociocultural trends ought to be
embedded in the code. In other words, cost-cutting (and, to put it
bluntly, the dumbing-down of technical services) is a response to
particular social conditions, ranging from tax revolts to the
devolution of literacy (and elevation of the "quick-fix fix"). A
revised AACR should acknowledge the actual world we live in, but
ought it to reify these kinds of trends? I would rather see a code
which actually declares a standard that takes a bit of work to achieve,
and let individual managers make their excuses :-).
I don't mean to misstate Mr. Cunnew's point -- it just provided me
with a jumping-off point for some of my concerns.
David Miller
Levin Library, Curry College
Milton, MA
dmiller@curry.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:52:01 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Bibliographic relationships
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
David Miller wrote:
> A revised AACR should acknowledge the actual world we live in, but
> ought it to reify these kinds of trends? I would rather see a code
> which actually declares a standard that takes a bit of work to achieve,
> and let individual managers make their excuses :-).
>
This brings me to another suggestion: Should a revised code (or any
cataloging code for that matter) have an introduction for the layperson?
For that's what "individual managers" often are when it comes to cataloging.
Were there this kind of introduction (5 pages maximum, better less),
carefully outlining the philosophy and structure of the code (not an
easy task, I knoe), it would become easier to point out to those managers
why their excuses are weak ones or even irresponsible.
But in any case, I think the "layperson's introduction" should be a
good thing to have, for what we are doing must appear very esoteric to
every taxpayer who didn't grow up in our profession.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:21:35 EDT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "Jenifer K. Marquardt" <JKM@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Layperson's introduction
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
I agree with Bernhard Eversberg's suggestion of including a layperson's
introduction in a new AACR. In addition to the reasons he mentioned, an
introduction would also be valuable as a teaching tool, providing a
consistent foundation for student's taking cataloging classes.
Jenifer Marquardt
Monographs Original Cataloger
University of Georgia Libraries
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:10:35 -0700
Reply-To: Daniel CannCasciato <dcc@mumbly.lib.cwu.edu>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Daniel CannCasciato <dcc@MUMBLY.LIB.CWU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bibliographic relationships
In-Reply-To: <vaQcUAA6a45zEw4d@cunnew.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi All,
to jump in here, too:
> As for cost cutting: if cataloguers are less qualified or have
> less time to attend to detail, isn't this something that code revisers
> will need to take into account?
In a time when there is more need for the ability to distinguish different
materials from one another, I don't see this as a direction I'd like the
profession take. We could, instead, accept that part of our task is
difficult and commit ourselves to improving our workflows and the rules
themselves.
The code can certainly stand to be simplified, but there are a number of
approaches to that. One is to simplify the rules themselves. Another,
however, is to make explicit that which is ambiguous. This doesn't
necessarily mean that the length of a bibliographic or authority record
would be any shorter; it could very well be a longer, more detailed
record. However, application of the rules would be a streamlined
intellectual process if the rules themselves are clearer.
Another might be to have continued education a mandatory aspect of
professional participation. Those most familiar with the code and it's
intent can (?) apply it more quickly and appropriately than those not as
familiar. While this does not simplify the code, it does streamline the
intellectual process of using the code.
The next year or so should be pretty interesting, following this
conference.
Daniel
-------------------------------------------
Daniel CannCasciato
Head of Cataloging and Interlibrary Loans
Central Washington University Library
400 East 8th Ave
Ellensburg WA 98926-7548
509 963-2120 509 963-3684 (FAX)
dcc@cwu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:01:56 CDT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Jim E Cole <jecole@IASTATE.EDU>
Subject: Issues Related to Seriality
I greatly enjoyed reading the Hirons/Graham paper "Issues Related to
Seriality," which discusses matters that have long needed discussing and
discusses them well.
The possibility of considering ongoing unnumbered works to be serials brings
to mind the ISBD(S) definition of a serial, which begins, "A publication in
printed form or not, issued in successive parts usually having numerical or
chronological designations and intended to be continued indefinitely."
(ISBD(S), rev. ed., p. 6) It also brings to mind example 50 (p. 71), which
contains a note "Collection non numerotee."
I do wish that for all serials, both print and nonprint, we could return to
cataloging from the latest issue. This does, to be sure, cause (or better,
permit) certain changes to Areas 1-4 of the description that hitherto have
been forbidden under AACR2, but it allows for the creation of records of use
by patrons, check-in staff, and others who may recognize the latest form of
a subtitle, for instance, and overlook a record having an earlier form in
Area 1--even if the change is as simple as
Appalachia : a journal of the Appalachian Regional Commission
which has now become
Appalachia : journal of the Appalachian Regional Commission.
The basic problem that needs to be considered is the fact that many online
catalogs--NOTIS, for instance, but even OCLC--alphabetize through subfield
"b" (the subtitle), and this greatly affects the placement of the records in
any index list. Also, if an online version of a serial is cataloged using the
latest chief source and the print version is left behind with the earliest,
then the two stand a good chance of being separated in the index of
an online catalog; it would be wise to bring them together whenever
possible.
For check-in purposes, too, the current place of publication and publisher
are much more of interest than, say, who published the serial in the 1870s
when it began. Giving the earliest place of publication in Area 4--and then
in a uniform title, if needed--can be a disservice to the patron, who
associates the title with the current place of publication, which it has had
throughout the bulk of its many years of existence, and does not even
realize it ever was published elsewhere.
Jim Cole
---
Jim Cole, Editor
THE SERIALS LIBRARIAN
SL home page: http://www.ames.net/serialslibrarian
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 22:12:06 +0100
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Robert Cunnew <robert@CUNNEW.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Issues Related to Seriality
In-Reply-To: <9708061901.AA25195@isua2.iastate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <9708061901.AA25195@isua2.iastate.edu>, Jim E Cole
<jecole@IASTATE.EDU> writes
>
>I do wish that for all serials, both print and nonprint, we could return to
>cataloging from the latest issue.
I've always had a lot of respect for the present earliest-issue rule in
AACR2. To me it's very pragmatic: it recognises that cataloguers
haven't the time to check every issue for minor changes.
>This does, to be sure, cause (or better,
>permit) certain changes to Areas 1-4 of the description that hitherto have
>been forbidden under AACR2, but it allows for the creation of records of use
>by patrons, check-in staff, and others who may recognize the latest form of
>a subtitle, for instance, and overlook a record having an earlier form in
>Area 1--even if the change is as simple as
>
> Appalachia : a journal of the Appalachian Regional Commission
>
>which has now become
>
> Appalachia : journal of the Appalachian Regional Commission.
For check-in, shelf-filing, holdings lists and many other purposes I
would strongly advocate using key title or uniform title: ie title
proper plus qualifier if necessary. That is what these are for. If
your software doesn't permit this isn't the fault with the software
rather than the rules?
I know the qualifier might be the original place of publication.
Perhaps we should move away from using place as a qualifier. It is
becoming less important as communications improve.
--
Robert Cunnew
Librarian, Chartered Insurance Institute, London
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 10:03:53 +1000
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Issues Related to Seriality
In-Reply-To: <9708061901.AA25195@isua2.iastate.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Jim E Cole wrote:
> I do wish that for all serials, both print and nonprint, we could return to
> cataloging from the latest issue. This does, to be sure, cause (or better,
> permit) certain changes to Areas 1-4 of the description that hitherto have
> been forbidden under AACR2, but it allows for the creation of records of use
> by patrons, check-in staff, and others who may recognize the latest form of
> a subtitle, for instance, and overlook a record having an earlier form in
> Area 1--even if the change is as simple as
>
> Appalachia : a journal of the Appalachian Regional Commission
>
> which has now become
>
> Appalachia : journal of the Appalachian Regional Commission.
>
> The basic problem that needs to be considered is the fact that many online
> catalogs--NOTIS, for instance, but even OCLC--alphabetize through subfield
> "b" (the subtitle), and this greatly affects the placement of the records in
> any index list.
Our Innopac catalogue behaves the same way as NOTIS, so including the
subtitle when filing is not at all unusual. The problem here is that the
user could approach this title in three different ways:
Appalachia
Appalachia a journal ...
Appalachia journal ...
In each case they ought to be sent directly to the record, if there is
no other title starting with those words. However, in most catalogues
the one-word search on "Appalachia" will bring up multiple hits. In ours
(which is a long way from Applachia), it brings up 22 hits starting with:
Appalachia 1903
Appalachia In The Sixties Decade Of Reawakening
Appalachia Preschool Test Of Cognitive Skills Apt
Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song Brigg Fair A
Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song With Final C
Appalachian Folk Songs For Recorder
Appalachian Geomorphology An Annotated Bibliography
Appalachian Ouachita Orogen In The United States
So even in our catalogue the three alternate forms of the title would
file differently.
> Appalachia
Appalachia 1903
> Appalachia a journal ...
Appalachia In The Sixties Decade Of Reawakening
> Appalachia journal ...
Appalachia Preschool Test Of Cognitive Skills Apt
Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song Brigg Fair A
Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song With Final C
Appalachian Folk Songs For Recorder
Appalachian Geomorphology An Annotated Bibliography
Appalachian Ouachita Orogen In The United States
The solution to the problem has two parts. The first is that OPACs
should create two index entries for title-subtitle combinations --
particularly for very short titles, which will file a long way away from
the title combined with the subtitle. The information is already present
in the bibliographic record, and it is unreasonable for cataloguers to
have to add an extra field when the operation can be carried out
mindlessly by a computer.
The second part of the solution is to allow, or even expect, cataloguers
to make added entries which the sub-title varies and this may affect
access to the record. This can be done regardless of whether you base
the description on the first issue or the latest issue: it just requires
someone to watch for subtitle changes; and you would have to watch for
subtitle changes anyway if you catalogued from the latest issue.
Giles
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
##
The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
-- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 00:01:50 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Ralph Papakhian <papakhi@INDIANA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University W&G Cook Music Library
Subject: Re: Issues Related to Seriality
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9708070913.A14396-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au> from
"Giles S Martin" at Aug 7, 97 10:03:53 am
Content-Type: text
Once again we have examples from particular OPAC systems that
do not even follow current filing rule standards.
What if Giles' example followed some more systematic set of
filing rules (say filing by title proper (subfiled by other
title)
then the example he provides would look like:
> Appalachia
> Appalachia : a journal ...
> Appalachia : journal ...
> Appalachia 1903
> Appalachia In The Sixties Decade Of Reawakening
> Appalachia Preschool Test Of Cognitive Skills Apt
> Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song Brigg Fair A
> Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song With Final C
> Appalachian Folk Songs For Recorder
> Appalachian Geomorphology An Annotated Bibliography
> Appalachian Ouachita Orogen In The United States
that's not so bad?
the comments coming across in aacrconf once again seem to be using
the logic:
please make aacr conform to my opac system's particularities.
i don't get it. is the function of aacr really to make notis or
dra or iii work better?
the recent comments about serials also seem to be considering
serials processing needs over all other needs (check-in, etc.).
of course, it may be that serials processing needs are more
significant, but successive entry (I'm guessing) does meet the
needs of potential catalog readers working from citations (assuming
that writers of papers cite serial titles from the article/volume
cited). i don't know if current citation practice of interest
to anyone, but at least some catalog users are going to be coming
to a catalog to follow a citation. it seems to me that the catalog
should at least meat that known function (as well as all of the
other hunches about how people may or may not use catalogs).
--ralph papakhian
Giles S Martin said
>
> On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Jim E Cole wrote:
>
> > I do wish that for all serials, both print and nonprint, we could return to
> > cataloging from the latest issue. This does, to be sure, cause (or better,
> > permit) certain changes to Areas 1-4 of the description that hitherto have
> > been forbidden under AACR2, but it allows for the creation of records of use
> > by patrons, check-in staff, and others who may recognize the latest form of
> > a subtitle, for instance, and overlook a record having an earlier form in
> > Area 1--even if the change is as simple as
> >
> > Appalachia : a journal of the Appalachian Regional Commission
> >
> > which has now become
> >
> > Appalachia : journal of the Appalachian Regional Commission.
> >
> > The basic problem that needs to be considered is the fact that many online
> > catalogs--NOTIS, for instance, but even OCLC--alphabetize through subfield
> > "b" (the subtitle), and this greatly affects the placement of the records in
> > any index list.
>
> Our Innopac catalogue behaves the same way as NOTIS, so including the
> subtitle when filing is not at all unusual. The problem here is that the
> user could approach this title in three different ways:
>
> Appalachia
> Appalachia a journal ...
> Appalachia journal ...
>
> In each case they ought to be sent directly to the record, if there is
> no other title starting with those words. However, in most catalogues
> the one-word search on "Appalachia" will bring up multiple hits. In ours
> (which is a long way from Applachia), it brings up 22 hits starting with:
>
> Appalachia 1903
> Appalachia In The Sixties Decade Of Reawakening
> Appalachia Preschool Test Of Cognitive Skills Apt
> Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song Brigg Fair A
> Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song With Final C
> Appalachian Folk Songs For Recorder
> Appalachian Geomorphology An Annotated Bibliography
> Appalachian Ouachita Orogen In The United States
>
> So even in our catalogue the three alternate forms of the title would
> file differently.
>
> > Appalachia
> Appalachia 1903
> > Appalachia a journal ...
> Appalachia In The Sixties Decade Of Reawakening
> > Appalachia journal ...
> Appalachia Preschool Test Of Cognitive Skills Apt
> Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song Brigg Fair A
> Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song With Final C
> Appalachian Folk Songs For Recorder
> Appalachian Geomorphology An Annotated Bibliography
> Appalachian Ouachita Orogen In The United States
>
> The solution to the problem has two parts. The first is that OPACs
> should create two index entries for title-subtitle combinations --
> particularly for very short titles, which will file a long way away from
> the title combined with the subtitle. The information is already present
> in the bibliographic record, and it is unreasonable for cataloguers to
> have to add an extra field when the operation can be carried out
> mindlessly by a computer.
>
> The second part of the solution is to allow, or even expect, cataloguers
> to make added entries which the sub-title varies and this may affect
> access to the record. This can be done regardless of whether you base
> the description on the first issue or the latest issue: it just requires
> someone to watch for subtitle changes; and you would have to watch for
> subtitle changes anyway if you catalogued from the latest issue.
>
> Giles
>
> #### ## Giles Martin
> ####### #### Quality Control Section
> ################# University of Newcastle Libraries
> #################### New South Wales, Australia
> ###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
> ##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
> Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
> ##
> The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
> -- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
>
--
A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 papakhi@indiana.edu
co-owner: MLA-L@listserv.indiana.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:26:30 +1000
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Issues Related to Seriality
In-Reply-To: <9708070501.AA16980@browndwarf.ucs.indiana.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I certainly don't want AACR to conform with everything that Innopac
does, since I find some of its practices annoying. What I do want is for
a library system to lead users from their OPAC searches as directly as
possible to the record they want.
The original posting talked about a journal with a varying subtitle. If
users put in the subtitle as part of their search, then I think that they
would expect to find both "Appalachia : journal ..." and "Appalachia
journal ..." in the same place. In other words, from their point of
view, they would expect the system to ignore colons in the same way as it
ignores other punctuation in titles. They don't know that there is a
subfield code there, they don't know the difference between "title
proper" and "other title information", and they don't want to have to
learn about these things.
So I was saying that a title like "Appalachia : journal ..." should file
in two places, because users could look for it in either way, and the two
forms would be separated in most catalogues. We didn't do this in card
catalogues or in book catalogues, because we wanted to keep the size of
the catalogue down, but this is no longer such an important consideration
in an OPAC.
The logical corollary of that is that if the subtitle changes, then you
need at new access point under the new title-subtitle combination.
Incidentally, in the listed examples that I gave, you would need an extra
access point under "Appalachia" for each of the two entries starting
"Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song", since the title proper
is just "Appalachia" (it's the musical work by Delius).
Giles
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
##
The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
-- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Ralph Papakhian wrote:
> Once again we have examples from particular OPAC systems that
> do not even follow current filing rule standards.
> What if Giles' example followed some more systematic set of
> filing rules (say filing by title proper (subfiled by other
> title)
> then the example he provides would look like:
>
> > Appalachia
> > Appalachia : a journal ...
> > Appalachia : journal ...
> > Appalachia 1903
> > Appalachia In The Sixties Decade Of Reawakening
> > Appalachia Preschool Test Of Cognitive Skills Apt
> > Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song Brigg Fair A
> > Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song With Final C
> > Appalachian Folk Songs For Recorder
> > Appalachian Geomorphology An Annotated Bibliography
> > Appalachian Ouachita Orogen In The United States
>
> that's not so bad?
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 01:47:28 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Ralph Papakhian <papakhi@INDIANA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University W&G Cook Music Library
Subject: Re: Issues Related to Seriality
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9708071543.C14396-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au> from
"Giles S Martin" at Aug 7, 97 03:26:30 pm
Content-Type: text
Greetings,
I am not able to follow Giles' line of reasoning. Giles presents
the hypothetical case:
"If users put in the subtitle as part of their search, then I think that they
would expect to find both "Appalachia : journal ..." and "Appalachia
journal ..." in the same place."
"If" users do such and so, then Giles "thinks" such and so. Such and so
is surely going to happen now and then. If it is often enough (does anyone
have any evidence?) then that would certainly be significant argument for
AACR to do away with the distinction between title proper (the main title)
and other title information. Somehow I don't imagine that this is a problem
unique to serials. But if one eliminates that distinction, the whole
"theory" of uniform titles (if there is such a theory) is thrown into
disarray.
What, exactly, is being proposed?
Since we are engaging in hypothetical scenarios, what would happen
if user X searched
Appalachia : journal
Appalachia journal
Appalachia a journal
and had no retrieval results?
Do you suppose the user would try?:
Appalachia
Is there any monographic corolloary?
Must the user searching either of these titles:
Hamlet, a tragic drama
or
Hamlet, une drame tragique
have all of there searching needs met?
We can postulate many hypotheticals. Say, as an
Armenian immigrant, I wander into the IU Music Library
and, interested in hearing a recent CD, search for the title:
Mazhig flud
I find nothing! Should this need also be met by AACR?
I'm sorry. I have not yet had the opportunity to read all of
the papers posted for the AACR Conference. But I would hope
that any discussion on this listserv could focus very carefully
on the purposes of AACR and cooperative cataloging without
digressing to peculiarities of various OPAC systems (which
usually don't even follow existing standards) or to hypothetical
unsuccessful searches, which all of us can create for any
set of catalog rules. Cataloging/bibliographic rules have not,
at least for about 400 years, attempted to account for any/all
potential, possible, hypothetical inquiries (I think). They have
tried to account for certain very basic searches common to the
western European academic tradition, which now seem to be on the
wane.
--ralph papakhian
Giles S Martin said
>
> I certainly don't want AACR to conform with everything that Innopac
> does, since I find some of its practices annoying. What I do want is for
> a library system to lead users from their OPAC searches as directly as
> possible to the record they want.
>
> The original posting talked about a journal with a varying subtitle. If
> users put in the subtitle as part of their search, then I think that they
> would expect to find both "Appalachia : journal ..." and "Appalachia
> journal ..." in the same place. In other words, from their point of
> view, they would expect the system to ignore colons in the same way as it
> ignores other punctuation in titles. They don't know that there is a
> subfield code there, they don't know the difference between "title
> proper" and "other title information", and they don't want to have to
> learn about these things.
>
> So I was saying that a title like "Appalachia : journal ..." should file
> in two places, because users could look for it in either way, and the two
> forms would be separated in most catalogues. We didn't do this in card
> catalogues or in book catalogues, because we wanted to keep the size of
> the catalogue down, but this is no longer such an important consideration
> in an OPAC.
>
> The logical corollary of that is that if the subtitle changes, then you
> need at new access point under the new title-subtitle combination.
>
> Incidentally, in the listed examples that I gave, you would need an extra
> access point under "Appalachia" for each of the two entries starting
> "Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song", since the title proper
> is just "Appalachia" (it's the musical work by Delius).
>
> Giles
>
> #### ## Giles Martin
> ####### #### Quality Control Section
> ################# University of Newcastle Libraries
> #################### New South Wales, Australia
> ###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
> ##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
> Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
> ##
> The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
> -- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
>
> On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Ralph Papakhian wrote:
>
> > Once again we have examples from particular OPAC systems that
> > do not even follow current filing rule standards.
> > What if Giles' example followed some more systematic set of
> > filing rules (say filing by title proper (subfiled by other
> > title)
> > then the example he provides would look like:
> >
> > > Appalachia
> > > Appalachia : a journal ...
> > > Appalachia : journal ...
> > > Appalachia 1903
> > > Appalachia In The Sixties Decade Of Reawakening
> > > Appalachia Preschool Test Of Cognitive Skills Apt
> > > Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song Brigg Fair A
> > > Appalachia Variations On An Old Slave Song With Final C
> > > Appalachian Folk Songs For Recorder
> > > Appalachian Geomorphology An Annotated Bibliography
> > > Appalachian Ouachita Orogen In The United States
> >
> > that's not so bad?
>
--
A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 papakhi@indiana.edu
co-owner: MLA-L@listserv.indiana.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 00:49:05 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Filing (was Issues Related to Seriality)
Comments: To: papakhi@INDIANA.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9708070647.AA18532@browndwarf.ucs.indiana.edu>
This statement by Giles was questioned:
>"If users put in the subtitle as part of their search, then I think that they
>would expect to find both "Appalachia : journal ..." and "Appalachia
>journal ..." in the same place."
I don't question it. Based on a catalogue use study, and based on where
student card filers filed the cards before professionals revised the
filing, that is *exactly* what a user would expect.
John Rather at the Library of Congress in an internal memo proposed that
filing rules be simplified to nothing before something (e.g., ground
water before groundwater), filing as spelled (e.g., Mc and Mac would not
interfile, umlauts would be ignored). We refiled the catalogue that
way, and filing revision became *much* less work. Now we have abandoned
filing to the computer, but this is pretty much what happens if ":$b"
and ".$p" are ignored in 245. We also found that people expected
numbers to file numerically before letters, rather than as spelled. So
that "Appalachia 1903" would have filed before "Appalachia : a ...",
rather than as shown by another poster, and so it does in every PC
system we support.
Perhaps filing should be considered part of catalogue construction, and
be discussed along with code revision and MARC. All are interdependent.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 10:23:46 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Filing (was Issues Related to Seriality)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Mac writes:
>
> Perhaps filing should be considered part of catalogue construction, and
> be discussed along with code revision and MARC. All are interdependent.
>
Perhaps indeed.
Well, I'm really not saying German rules were so much better, but we've had
this integration of filing rules into the code for a long time, and
German catalogers are always mildly puzzled when learning that this
is not so with AACR.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:51:58 +0100
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Robert Cunnew <robert@CUNNEW.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Issues related to seriality
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
The paper by Hirons and Graham is very well presented and makes some
sensible suggestions. However, these are wrapped up in a radicalism
which no-one with an existing catalogue to worry about needs. What we
do need are gradual adjustments to the existing rules. There are also
one or two omissions in the paper.
"Recommendation 1: Adopt a three-dimensional approach to the cataloging
rules."
If AACR is going to give some decent definitions re publication status,
could we please have one for "published"? This causes more problems
with monographs than serials but it's still a serious omission.
"Recommendation 2: Incorporate the concept of the ongoing publication
into the cataloging code."
I don't think this is necessary: all we need to do is extend the
definition of serial a little and add a new chapter on singlepart
updating items.
"Recommendation 3: Adopt Model B as a short term solution. Work towards
the adoption of Model C as a longer term approach."
Model B differs from the present definition of serials in including
unnumbered as well as numbered items. Fair enough; but don't lets
forget that many items AACR2 recognises as serials are already
unnumbered: they have chronological designations. Model C is worrying
because it dispenses with the notion of serials altogether.
"If there were more of an emphasis on identifying ongoing publications
rather than transcribing them down to the exact punctuation, we wouldnt
end up with meaningless designations, such as: "1992-1993- 1994-1995,"
but could give "1992/1993-1994/1995." "
AACR2 *doesn't* insist on exact transcription of punctuation and the
latter example (which we follow) is already quite legitimate.
"The placement of the bodys name on the chief source of the first issue
determines whether it is recorded as a statement of responsibility or as
the publisher. The placement often changes on subsequent issues, while
in reality, the body is continuing to serve the same function."
No. This is a CLA rule interpretation, nothing to do with AACR2. We
follow a different interpretation: a body goes into the statement of
responsibility if it is different from the publisher *or* the title is
generic. This doesn't contradict AACR2.
"Recommendation 4: Retain description based on the earliest issue for
publications issued successively; for publications issued in a single
updating part, base the description on the latest iteration."
Yes, this is the only practical option.
"Recommendation 5: For ongoing publications, replace the concept of
chief source with that of source of title. Allow greater flexibility in
the selection of title within the parameters of the prescribed sources.
Define new terminology for sources within online publications."
The phrase "greater flexibility" worries me: we look to AACR to answer
our questions in a consistent way, not to turn them back on us as some
kind of bibliographic psychoanalyst ("Well, where would you *like* to
take the publisher from?").
"Recommendation 6: ... apply successive entry to changes of entry for
successively-issued publications and a latest entry approach to changes
of entry for updating publications."
I was relieved to read this. It may cause problems but I think it's the
only viable approach. An additional justification: cataloguing serials
under titles they don't carry is a particular problem in host item
citations in analytic records. The second part is quite reasonable too
and doesn't require major surgery.
"Might we not give more credence to the title of a journal (which is
entered under title main entry) than to that of an annual report or
conference publication (which is entered under corporate body)?"
So our space-age serials cataloguing machine is to be drawn by a main-
entry donkey? If we're going to be radical, surely that must be first
concept into the bin?
"Recommendation 7: Modify the rules for title changes to reduce the
number of meaningless changes."
Yes, but we must retain the link between what it says on the cover and
the title proper in the record. One step forward would be to regard
titles of the form "Post magazine & insurance week" as splitting (into
title proper and other title information) *before* the & if layout and
typography justify. But this is a situation where ISSNs always seem to
change.
"Recommendation 8: For ongoing publications, create rules that focus on
identification rather than transcription. Consider new displays and
arrangements of data that might result from and facilitate such a focus
and that would keep similar information together in the record."
On the face of it the second point has good possibilities, although it
could get rather complicated:
London : Smith & Brown, 1900-1937 ; Green & Yellow, 1938-1970 ;
Birmingham : Pink & White, 1970-
Also, spare a thought for those not using MARC, for which the above
could create problems.
"Recommendation 10: Explore new ways of arranging the rules that will
facilitate a three-dimensional approach to cataloging ... "
The present arrangement of AACR2 is not helpful: it is easy to miss
things because of the split between ch 1 and ch 2-12. We mustn't allow
too much theory to create an arrangement which is even more complicated.
Would it be better to adopt a simple arrangement by area of description,
with subrules where necessary for special materials? This would help
iron out the existing discrepancies between different treatment of the
same situation for different kinds of material.
--
Robert Cunnew
Librarian, Chartered Insurance Institute, London
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 17:03:56 -0400
Reply-To: Arlene Taylor <taylor@lis.pitt.edu>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Arlene Taylor <taylor@LIS.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Interdependence of AACR, MARC, filing rules
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Mac wrote:
> Perhaps filing should be considered part of catalogue construction, and
> be discussed along with code revision and MARC. All are interdependent.
Charles Cutter's rules, at the last turn of the century, contained rules
for entry, rules for description, rules for subject heading, rules for
form heading, and rules for filing. These rules were not possible to
maintain. They were broken into smaller pieces, probably for good reason.
Mac did not suggest here that the rules be published together, only
"discussed" together. Some previous posts, however, have suggested that
MARC be included in AACR. This would have made sense a number of years
ago, but now, with the advent of other encoding standards, I wonder if we
would really want to tie the standard wording of the content of
bibliographic records to the coding of those records. There are already
places that have begun coding records with HTML rather than with MARC.
In addition the Dublin Core may become a standard for cataloging internet
resources. The "standard" will be the elements of the Core and the
container in which it is housed. They have no plan now to write a
standard for the wording of the *content* of the elements. That content
could just as well be done according to AACR (along with other standards
for subject headings, classification numbers, etc., which is also true
with MARC).
I think we should be very careful about including other standards with
AACR. It would make things quite complicated because the other standards
have overseeing bodies of their own, and because the other standards
have lives and uses of their own.
****************************************************
Arlene G. Taylor ** Associate Professor
Department of Library and Information Science
School of Information Sciences
University of Pittsburgh ** Pittsburgh, PA 15260
e-mail: taylor@lis.pitt.edu ** voice: 412-624-9452
fax: 412-648-7001 ** http://www.pitt.edu/~agtaylor
****************************************************
"What the caterpillar calls the end of the world,
the master calls a butterfly." --Richard Bach
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:46:56 UT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Thomas Brenndorfer <ThomasB@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Filing (was Issues Related to Seriality)
-----Original Message-----
From: International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 1997 12:49 AM
To: AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Filing (was Issues Related to Seriality)
John Rather at the Library of Congress in an internal memo proposed that
filing rules be simplified to nothing before something (e.g., ground
water before groundwater), filing as spelled (e.g., Mc and Mac would not
interfile, umlauts would be ignored). We refiled the catalogue that
way, and filing revision became *much* less work. Now we have abandoned
filing to the computer, but this is pretty much what happens if ":$b"
and ".$p" are ignored in 245. We also found that people expected
numbers to file numerically before letters, rather than as spelled. So
that "Appalachia 1903" would have filed before "Appalachia : a ...",
rather than as shown by another poster, and so it does in every PC
system we support.
Perhaps filing should be considered part of catalogue construction, and
be discussed along with code revision and MARC. All are interdependent.
Mac
[]
I agree with this 100 percent. The computer filing that Mac describes is based
entirely on the ASCII values of the respective characters, with space before
numeral before letter. A universal approach to filing rules should be a
>>mandated<< requirement in AACR revisions.
As an example, I am thinking about the year 2000 problem, where filing of our
CODOC organized government document collection is done with two-digit dates. I
want to move to 4-digit dates, but how does one get -2000 to follow -99? One
solution is replace the ASCII character "-" with a character that files higher
than numbers or letters. A good solution would be: -99 followed by \2000 (a
downward slash before the year). This new number files exactly where it should
in the online catalog. People will still have to be trained to use the
character, but at least this is based on near universal conventions (ASCII
values), and it is far better than a mysteriously intermixed collection as two
centuries slowly collide in the filing order.
Perhaps still problematic is the automatic sorting of other numerical values
in our index terms. For example, how does one get a good, consistent ordering
of series numbering using the numbering from the series added entry? I would
think we would have to rely on artificial intelligence and expert systems for
computer programs to apply the myriad understandings humans have about
ordering alphanumeric elements. Computers seem to find these complications
(such as filing 100 before 20) extremely intractable, whereas filing clerks
don't seem to have as much trouble. The same problem seems to exist with
chronological subdivisions in subject headings. How about a thorough review of
this whole concept of sorting and filing?
Tom Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
thomasb@msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 10:47:30 +1000
Reply-To: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Fundamentals
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Can I first step back a bit from this discussion, and try to list a few
of the propositions that I regard as axiomatic (but which others might
think more dubious)? Part of the reason why I want to do this is my
mathematical background, which makes me want to do things in a logical
order. And part of the reaso is my feeling that there have been some
disagreements about fundamental concepts in AACR.
(1) AACR is about the *description* of the *bibliographic universe* so that
*users* can find the *bibliographic items* they want. The description
should describe as precisely as possible the entities and relationships
in the bibliographic universe, so that users can identify bibliographic
items quickly and accurately.
(2) *Description* includes:
(a) Transcription of *cataloguing information* about bibliographic items
from the items themselves and from other sources.
(b) Providing *access points* linked to the cataloguing information.
(3) The *bibliographic universe* includes everything in library
collections, everything available from publishers, and everything
available on the Internet. (It may include other things as well, but
this will do for the time being).
(4) *Bibliographic items* include:
(a) Physical items in library collections.
(b) Computer files available on the Internet.
(c) Works contained in or manifested in bibliographic items.
(d) Sets (in the mathematical sense) of bibliographic items, such as
*manifestations*, *editions*, *serials* and *series*.
(Note that this definition is recursive. Note also that the sets in part
(d) must make some sort of bibliographic sense -- e.g. the set of all
books with red bindings in my library is not included, nor is the set of
all books that are out on loan to me.)
(5) *Manifestations* are the sets of all physical items which share a
common title, publisher, format and content, and are therefore treated as
being identical.
(6) *Cataloguing information* includes:
(a) The names (*titles*) of bibliographic items.
(b) The names of people and organisations who are responsible for
producing and distributing bibliographic items, which for the time being
we will call *authors* (although of course in real life they are called
lots of other things -- such as editors, performers, producers, publishers).
(c) The physical description of bibliographic items.
(d) The *access points* which are linked to the descriptions of
bibliographic items.
Cataloguing information does not include information about the topical
content of bibliographic items, although that may often be deduced from
the cataloguing information.
(7) *Access points* are formally constructed names for *authors* and
*works*, based on the names found in bibliographic items. Access points
are constructed so that, as far as possible, there is a one-to-one
relationship between access points and authors or works.
(8) Although AACR does not specify it, access points are designed to be
filed in a particular order (which may in practice differ according to the
kind of library catalogue, partcularly with OPACs)
(9) OPACs may include access points which are not specified in AACR but
which are included in the cataloguing information prescribed by AACR,
such as key words in contents and ISBNs.
(10) *Users* approach the catalogue with names for *authors* and *works*
based on how they have seen or heard them named, and perhaps with an
imperfect memory of that. As far as practicable, they should be guided
to the formally constructed *acccess points* by *references* from the
names chosen by users.
(There are a few terms above indicated by asterisks that need formal
definition, but which I haven't formally defined. In addition, of
course, the definitions given above need to be further refined -- but
they can never, by the nature of things, reach the rigour of a formal
definition in mathematics.)
I think I've said enough in this message. There are some more points
that I want to make arising out of the "Filing" debate that I will put
into a further message.
Giles
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
##
The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
-- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 11:20:48 +1000
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Filing
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9708080920.C27544-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In the message I just posted, one of my proposed axioms was:
(10) *Users* approach the catalogue with names for *authors* and *works*
based on how they have seen or heard them named, and perhaps with an
imperfect memory of that. As far as practicable, they should be guided
to the formally constructed *acccess points* by *references* from the
names chosen by users.
I want to go on from that point to look at the "Filing" debate.
Ralph Papakhian, not unfairly, criticised me for putting up some
"hypotheticals". He is right: it often worries me, too, that cataloguers
makes decisions based on what we think users will look for, rather tha
seeking some empirical evidence. The empirical evidence that we use is
the information we find in the bibliographic universe -- names used on
title pages, etc. -- and not what users come to the catalogue with.
Of course, in a sense we have to depend on what we find in the
bibliographic universe. We need to describe it accurately, as a service
to our users, who often depend on an accurate description. Further, the
words used in the bibliographic universe are much easier to identify that
the words that catalogue users might bring to the catalogue -- partly
because the relevant words will be brought to it in the future!
However, with the invention of OPACs, it is now possible to obtain
precise empirical evidence of what searches are being brought to the
catalogue; and this may be relevant to what gets put into the catalogue.
For example, over a four-month period last year, in this library, the
most popular title searches (used more than 100 times) were:
abnormal psychology 151
articulate mammal 106
australian industrial relations 120
australian law journal 117
australian psychologist 618
biochemistry 110
biology 165
bulletin 119
business review weekly 112
chemistry the central science 110
child development 192
companion to ethics 230
concepts and schemata 140
death of nature 139
essay writing for students 204
ethics 101
film art an introduction 164
first global revolution 198
for and against feminism 105
fundamentals of nursing 490
fundamentals of physical geography 147
in the underworld 135
journal of advanced nursing 207
lancet 127
learning to labour 115
microeconomics 196
much ado about nothing 147
nature 160
new sociology for australians 341
new woman new earth 121
norton anthology of poetry 108
philosophical ethics 135
process of learning 140
psychology at work 118
science 153
scientfic american 161
second sex 106
social psychology 123
social psychology a practical manual 286
social science and medicine 140
society and change 101
sociology 228
sociology a brief but critical introduction 101
sociology one 212
sociology themes and perspectives 381
studying law 108
survive exams 186
textbook of anatomy 101
turning point 110
Of course, most of these titles are the names of books prescribed for
reading by undergraduate students: that's what you would expect in an
academic library.
A few will give you a lot of hits, so that the user might need some way
of limiting the search to find the right book or journal -- such as
"biology", "bulletin", "ethics", "nature", "science" and "sociology". So
catalogues will need to have mechanisms here (which are not prescribed by
AACR, except for additions to common uniform titles like "bulletin").
By my estimate, five of the list include what might be subtitles:
chemistry the central science 110
film art an introduction 164
social psychology a practical manual 286
sociology a brief but critical introduction 101
sociology themes and perspectives 381
In fact, the relevant bibliographic records do have a $b subfield:
Chemistry :$bthe central science /$cTheodore L. Brown, H. Eugene
LeMay, Jr., Bruce E. Bursten
Film art :$ban introduction /$cDavid Bordwell, Kristin Thompson
Social psychology :$ba practical manual /$cedited by Glynis M.
Breakwell, Hugh Foot and Robin Gilmour
Sociology :$ba brief but critical introduction /$cAnthony Giddens
Sociology :$bthemes and perspectives /$cMichael Haralambos ...
[et al.]
So with most of them, if you filed the title under just the "title
proper", you would be a considerable distance from the title sought by
the user. A title search on just "Sociology" gives 34 entries with the
one word title, and a further 611 titles starting with "Sociology"!
This means, that at least in these cases, the choice of an inappropriate
filing order will give our users real problems -- not hypothetical
problems.
Giles
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
##
The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
-- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 20:56:21 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Fundamentals & axioms
Comments: To: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9708080920.C27544-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
As the gourmand ungrammatically said to the waiter handing back the menu,
"I see nothing here to object to". You made some sound points.
Just some addenda.
> (b) Providing *access points* linked to the cataloguing information.
"Linked" surprised me. I am more accustomed to having this relationship
called "justified". True, in an authorities environment the access
points are linked to fields in the MARC record, but in other
environments the access points themselves are embedded in the record,
often in forms differing from the transcribed ones which justify them.
I am more comfortable thinking in terms of an ISBD based record, plus
access points, being incorporated into a catalogue, than thinking of a
deconstructed record with information dispersed, although the latter
will happen in some environments. It seems to me the code must be
written in terms of a discrete record per manifestation. One
poster's idea of integrating the rules by area (field) across formats,
with exceptions for particular formats noted in each area, sounded good
to me.
>(6) *Cataloguing information* includes:
> (a) The names (*titles*) of bibliographic items.
> (b) The names of people and organizations who are responsible for
>producing and distributing bibliographic items, which for the time being
>we will call *authors* (although of course in real life they are called
>lots of other things -- such as editors, performers, producers, publishers).
I am a bit uncomfortable with this lumping together of 245$c and 260 (to
speak in MARKese). Perhaps you mean to include place, publisher, date
as physical description below, but for me physical description begins
with collation. Also, there is no mention of notes or entries bringing
out history and relationships (440, 580, 780, 785, etc.).
> (c) The physical description of bibliographic items.
>Cataloguing information does not include information about the
>topical content of bibliographic items, although that may often be
>deduced from the cataloguing information.
True, subject analysis is another field, but there is overlap, e.g.,
autobiographies and annual reports.
>(10) *Users* approach the catalogue with names for *authors* and
>*works*
Every catalogue use study I have done found that through at least
the junior year of university, the most frequent search is subject.
Only seniors, graduate students, faculty, and staff would search
more for known items than for subjects. I would put "When searching for
a known item" in front of (10) above. I also wonder if some of those
"title" searches you quoted from your OPAC use record were not intended
as subject searches.
Your remarks on catalogue arrangement in your filing post are, I
think, spot on.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 14:55:44 +1000
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Fundamentals & axioms
Comments: To: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@slc.bc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <16m6zEJ3BI8Z092yn@slc.bc.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Some quick responses to some of Mac's comments are below my signature block.
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
##
The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
-- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> > (b) Providing *access points* linked to the cataloguing information.
>
> "Linked" surprised me. I am more accustomed to having this relationship
> called "justified". True, in an authorities environment the access
> points are linked to fields in the MARC record, but in other
> environments the access points themselves are embedded in the record,
> often in forms differing from the transcribed ones which justify them.
I used the word "linked" fairly deliberately, as I was trying to cover
all forms of catalogues. In the card catalogue, the access point is
linked to the description by being written above it (as a heading for
filing purposes) or below it (as a tracing on a main entry). A book
catalogue is similar. In an OPAC, the links are provided by a connection
from an index to a bibliographic record, and by the inclusion of fields
containing headings in the bibliographic record (which can take you back
to the index). In fact, the technical details are often more complex
than this.
> >(10) *Users* approach the catalogue with names for *authors* and
> >*works*
>
> Every catalogue use study I have done found that through at least
> the junior year of university, the most frequent search is subject.
> Only seniors, graduate students, faculty, and staff would search
> more for known items than for subjects. I would put "When searching for
> a known item" in front of (10) above. I also wonder if some of those
> "title" searches you quoted from your OPAC use record were not intended
> as subject searches.
I think that in an academic library the majority of searches are for
known items: undergraduates looking for set texts, postgraduates looking
for books and articles that they have found cited somewhere, or that they
have found in a journal index. The situation is probably different in
public libraries and school libraries.
However, I just said "authors and titles" because the universe I am
talking about is the universe of AACR. While there are some links
between AACR and the universe of subject cataloguing, there are some
important differences. One is that that in the AACR universe entities
are more well-defined, and are more precisely labeled. The concepts
"William Shakespeare" or "Macbeth" are much better defined than
"chemistry" or "sociology". Cataloguers will find much easier to agree
on whether a work is by "William Shakespeare" or if a item is a
manifestation of "Macbeth" than they will agree on whether a book is
about "chemistry" or about "sociology". They will find it easier to
agree on who is the author or what is the title than on what is the
subject or what the name of the subject is.
Giles
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 01:06:50 +0530
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: John Attig <jca@PSULIAS.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Fundamentals and other things
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
It being after midnight where I am, I am going to throw caution to the
winds and enter this discussion, hoping that I will not be totally
incoherent.
I'd like to return to a different type of fundamental than the ones Giles
has set forth [although I do appreciate his list and even agree with almost
all of it -- at least until someone starts drawing implications].
I'd like to recall the purpose of the exercise we are engaged in: a
discussion of the principles and future development of AACR2. To many of
the comments I have seen recently, I have been tempted to ask: "But what do
you expect AACR2 to do about it?" I think we might want to begin to direct
our attention to the question of how the cataloguing rules can help (or
hinder) the problems we are describing.
As much of the discussion has touched heavily on the terrible things our
online systems do to our lovely data, I think that it might be time to
return to an issue that I raised some time ago: what is the cataloguing
code attempting to codify? Should be look to AACR2 to codify the display
of cataloguing information (such things as layout of records, arrangement
of access points, etc.)? How far do we want to take this? We could decide
that the organization of information prescribed in Part I of AACR2 is to be
our standard of display and that (for instance) a labelled, as opposed to a
paragraphed, display of cataloguing information does not comply with the
rules. We could add a specification of filing order for access points to
the code and declare that any display that insists on presenting lists of
data arranged in the ASCII collating sequence are in violation of the
rules. We could do that, but I don't think that the people who pay the
bills at our institutions would be willing to pay for a system that fully
complies with that rigorous a standard -- or that our users will be willing
to wait around while a system sorts data and formats displays.
Beyond this somewhat cynical point about costs and benefits, I think that
any system designer would react negatively to such a specific display
standard. The response would be (1) sure, we can do that if that's what
you really want and you are willing to pay the costs, but (2) you should
realize that you are stifling the creativity of some very talented people
and turning your back on a lot of past and future lessons learned from our
experience with human-machine-information interactions. Speaking in my own
voice again, I think that system designers have added significant value to
our information systems beyond what the rules currently specify and that
their creativity can be stimulated, rather than stifled, by our better
articulating goals and principles rather than rules and specifications.
So, I guess I'm arguing against making the rules too specific about such
things as displays.
If not a display specification, what is the code? For one thing, it is an
organized list of data elements, along with specific rules for recording
appropriate information for each element. We have some trouble with the
details of the rules for recording information, but we also have trouble
with the concept of an organized list of elements: the fact that there is
an explicit sequence of elements and that there are a wealth of implied
relationships among the elements.
There is also another role for the code, one that seems to me to be a
weakness of AACR2. The current rules are strong on creating single
bibliographic descriptions, but are not equally strong on creating a
catalogue. The relationships between records are implicit in Part II of
AACR2, but the approach there is still from the individual record (what
entries to make for that item and then what form to use for that name or
title). The tools for articulating relationships among records are
principally entries (Ch.21) and references (Ch.26). These two methods can
be in conflict (anyone want to talk about names of treaties?) and the rules
do not resolve these conflicts. It is not even clear that these two
methods exhaust the possibilities for articulating relationships among
bibliographic entities. [Digression: The IFLA Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records document has made a good start in *defining* what
entities and relationships are important. One of the next steps is to
study the ways in which these relationships should be made functional
within an information system.]
Going back to my original point, I think that most of the topics proposed
for the Conference and the papers that have been posted are addressing this
type of issue. Most deal with defining or re-defining fundamental
bibliographic entities or with relationships among entities. I think we
need to bridge the gap between such general issues and their specific
implications and applications.
One specific example: I completely agree with Giles that our users cannot
be depended upon to agree with our decisions about where the title proper
of a publications ends and where the other title information begins. So
what can the rules do? The rule for title added entries (21.30J) calls for
making an added entry for the title proper and permits making additional
title added entries under "any version of the title." Should the rules be
more prescriptive and require added entries under title proper plus
subtitle in all or some circumstances? Does anybody doubt that "any
version of the title" permits such entries? If not, then shouldn't that
point be made explicit in the rule? Beyond that, should the rules be more
explicit about how title access (or any other kind of access) is provided?
Is it time for the rules to recognize that a significant component of
access in most information systems is through keywords rather than complete
headings? Should the rules include specifications for what elements should
be so indexed and how the results should be presented? In sum: What is the
appropriate way for the rules to address Giles' problem? Or is this a
problem best solved outside the rules?
Apologies for a somewhat rambling message. I look forward to the
continuing discussion.
John Attig
Penn State University Libraries
University Park, PA 16802
jca@psulias.psu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 08:37:51 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Issues related to seriality
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
At the end of his recent posting, Robert Cunnew wrote:
> Would it be better to adopt a simple arrangement by area of description,
> with subrules where necessary for special materials? This would help
> iron out the existing discrepancies between different treatment of the
> same situation for different kinds of material.
>
This should indeed be given serious consideration, also with regard to
reasoning put forth in other postings toward integration of code and format.
It would also eliminate a lot of tedious duplication and almost-duplication
in chapters 2 to 12, and the frequent necessity of flipping back and
forth between these and chapter 1.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 11:10:17 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: AACR + filing rules
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Mac wrote:
>
> > Perhaps filing should be considered part of catalogue construction, and
> > be discussed along with code revision and MARC. All are interdependent.
>
and Arlene Taylor replied:
> Charles Cutter's rules, at the last turn of the century, contained rules
> for entry, rules for description, rules for subject heading, rules for
> form heading, and rules for filing. These rules were not possible to
> maintain. They were broken into smaller pieces, probably for good reason.
>
What was that reason?
Mac's suggestion is, I think, a very important one and not to be dismissed
because there may probably have been good reasons at some point in the
distant (pre-MARC) past. Not only is the tight integration of a cataloging
code with filing rules a sound and logical proposition, but also, if one
cares to look beyond the AACR world, large-scale examples can be found where
this approach WAS found possible to maintain and where nobody ever found a
reason to split filing rules from the code.
Many colleagues in this country really hate the idea that Germany should go
on indefinitely using a code not compatible with AACR, but up until now
there is still much reluctance here to adopt the latter. Probably for good
reason.
P.S.
To my knowledge, the real reason was just a practical one, not a good one:
American libraries had those extra employees called "filers", so that true
and real "catalogers" didn't have to waste their time filing their cards
themselves. I'm sure this is largely a thing of the past. Somehow this
division of labor never caught on here, and hence no division of filing
rules from cataloging rules.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:45:35 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Topics outside AACR such as subject cataloguing
Comments: To: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9708081407.E27544-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Giles said:
>I think that in an academic library the majority of searches are for
>known items: undergraduates looking for set texts, postgraduates looking
>for books and articles that they have found cited somewhere, or that they
>have found in a journal index. The situation is probably different in
>public libraries and school libraries.
Perhaps this is a Canadian/Australian difference. When at the
circulation desk we asked "how did you find this?" about the item being
checked out, the majority answered "by subject" through the first
three years of their academic career. (The "set texts" were purchased
at the book store.) They were looking for materials on subjects assigned
for term papers.
In training new cataloguers, the absence of generally accepted
guidelines for assigning subject headings was a major handicap. Whether
AACR should contain such guidelines is another question. Perhaps AACR
can't be everything (integrated with MARC, include catalogue
construction guidelines, include subject cataloguing guidelines), but we
do have clearer guidance in descriptive cataloguing than in subject
cataloguing or catalogue construction. We seem to be engaged in
improving what is already the best.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
>However, I just said "authors and titles" because the universe I am
>talking about is the universe of AACR. While there are some links
>between AACR and the universe of subject cataloguing, there are some
>important differences. One is that that in the AACR universe entities
>are more well-defined, and are more precisely labeled. The concepts
>"William Shakespeare" or "Macbeth" are much better defined than
>"chemistry" or "sociology". Cataloguers will find much easier to agree
>on whether a work is by "William Shakespeare" or if a item is a
>manifestation of "Macbeth" than they will agree on whether a book is
>about "chemistry" or about "sociology". They will find it easier to
>agree on who is the author or what is the title than on what is the
>subject or what the name of the subject is.
>
>Giles
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 11:36:25 -0700
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: AACRCONF Coordinator <aacrconf-coord@NLC-BNC.CA>
Organization: NLC-BNC
Subject: Papers received from Sherry L. Vellucci and Rahmatollah Fattahi
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Please note that the following conference papers are now available on
the JSC Web site:
Bibliographic Relationships by Sherry L. Vellucci.
AACR2 and Catalogue Production Technology: The Relevance of Cataloguing
Principles to the Online Environment by Rahmatollah Fattahi.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 12:25:57 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: William Gerlach <wgerlach@BADLANDS.NODAK.EDU>
Subject: AACR and the display of the bibliographic record
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
First, I would like to say that it is wonderful that this list was set
up to allow discussion of the papers that have been made available. I find
that I get so busy with the HOW of cataloging and getting the materials (be
they here physically or on the Internet) available/accessible to the user
that I rarely take the time to think about the WHY, but this list has given
me a reason to do so.
This message is partly in response to John Attig's post, which caused
me to re-read Rahmatollah Fattahi's paper in which he states that "AACR
does not provide ANY guidelines for display" (emphasis mine). While I
agree with this point, the divisions of the rules for description into 8
areas at least IMPLIES that certain elements of the description are related
to each other and as such should (or maybe not?) be displayed together.
It may be argued that these areas simply reflect the card-based bias
of AACR, since these areas are given in the order in which they appear in
the traditional catalog card format. While this may be true, there are
varying levels of relationships between the elements in these areas which
can provide a jumping-off point for guidelines for display.
The most obvious relationship which occurs to me is between the title
portions of the series and the numbering within the series in the series
area. To my mind these elements must necessarily display in proximity to
one another, since the number alone has little or no meaning without the
title.
Another area which it makes sense to me to display in proximity to one
another, but for the reason of separating it from other elements, is the
physical description area. My reasoning is that the elements in this area
are perhaps the only PURELY descriptive elements in the bibliographic
record: I can think of no reason to use them as access points, although I
could see that they could be used as limiting elements (such as someone who
wants books with accompanying slides). While some bibliographic records
(including those that are MARC-based) may have such information coded
elsewhere for limiting, not all users of the rules will.
On the other hand, an area in which the elements have little
relationship to one another in the note area. The discussion is
complicated by the fact that those of us who use MARC are now using fields
outside of the 5XX to generate notes and access points from the same field.
While it may be an accident of MARC that variations in title (B4 of the
note area) and other title information (B5) are displayed in many OPACs
next to the title and statement or responsibility area, rather than next to
other notes, I would argue that this may be a more reasonable placement of
such notes/access points. Similarly, notes relating to edition and history
(B7) as well as the other notes which correspond directly to one of the
first 6 areas may make more sense in proximity to those areas.
There are certainly arguments which can be made one way or the other
for the other areas as well, but any future changes to AACR which deal with
display should take the relationship between elements in one area and
between elements in two different areas into account.
Bill Gerlach
Cataloguer/NDNACO Funnel Project Administrator
NDSU Libraries
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 12:29:40 CDT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: David Prochazka <davidpro@LIB.RUSH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Filing
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
In our library, we've grappled with the issue of filing by complete
title vs. title proper ever since we went online in 1985; some of our
manual files (e.g. our media booking system) are filed by title, and
since we collect in a narrow scope (health sciences), different
works with the same title-proper are commonplace.
For online catalogs, rather than choose only title proper or
complete title as the title access point, why not index both? That
way, we won't have to second-guess or spend lots of time on
empirical studies to determine user preferences; we might also
spend less time determining where we think users would think the
title proper ended.
I see many chief sources that are (intentionally?) ambiguous as to
title proper vs. other title information. I suspect most of us do.
For the work "Medicine PreTest self-assessment and review" which
graphically sets off the word "Medicine" on the chief source, we
chose "Medicine" as the title proper; that's fine, but grammatically,
"Medicine PreTest self-assessment and review" is also a very
logical title to look for.
I'm suggesting that this record have title indexing under "Medicine"
and under "Medicine : PreTest self-assessment and review,"
perhaps not so much for the sake of where it lands in alphabetic
arrays, but for the sake of the user who could easily type in
"Medicine PreTest self-assessment and review" as a title search
and not realize that we own it, because we only indexed it under the
title "Medicine." I can't imagine that this should be a problem from
the programming end, and it would certainly increase the potential
for retrieval.
-------------------------------------------------->
David Prochazka, Cataloging Librarian
Library of Rush University
600 S. Paulina--Rm. 581//Chicago, IL 60612-3874
phone: 312-942-2731//fax: 312-942-3143
e-mail: davidp@lib.rush.edu
-------------------------------------------------->
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 11:33:10 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Scott Piepenburg <spiepenb@FALCON.DALLAS.ISD.TENET.EDU>
Subject: Re: AACR and the display of the bibliographic record
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
As a trainer, I work with many librarians around the United States (and a
few in Canada) and am constantly hit with the question of "which automated
system more accurately displays the record from AACR." This then takes us
on the discussion that AACR is a means to select and format the information,
MARC is a means for storing the information, and it us up to the designer of
the automated system to determine how that information is being displayed.
Many librarians equate AACR with display. What we need to do is look at the
function of each. USMARC is NOT a cataloging code, although it seems as if
much of what we do as catalogers is determined by how it will display. As a
former system designer and current librarian and trainer, I've ALWAYS
encouraged librarians to catalog according to AACR, code and organize
according to the appropriate MARC format, and create displays and indexes by
having the automation system organize and extract from the MARC record what
is important.
Someone earlier accurately stated that the code should NOT be linked to a
particular format or system. If the information is coded correctly, and
then formatted correctly, automation systems can be designed to extract what
each library deems important in the cataloging record. That gives each
library the flexibility it needs for its users.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scott Piepenburg
District Cataloger/System Administrator
Dallas Public Schools
spiepenb@dallas.isd.tenet.edu
http://www.dallas.isd.tenet.edu
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered. My life is my own."-- No. 6
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 14:12:19 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Ralph Papakhian <papakhi@INDIANA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University W&G Cook Music Library
Subject: Re: Filing
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9708081055.D27544-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au> from
"Giles S Martin" at Aug 8, 97 11:20:48 am
Content-Type: text
Giles S Martin said
....
Greetings,
The evidence of these searches could also suggest that
they were cataloged incorrectly. That is, based on the
way people are searching for the titles, it appears that
what has been included as other title information really
ought to be considered as part of the title proper
(the chief name of an item).
286 searches on "social psychology a practical manual" may
be a pretty good indication of what the chief name is?
No one has ever claimed (I think) that catalogers' decisions
are always the best, nor that descriptive cataloging shouldn't
be revised as necessary.
--ralph papakhian.
>
> By my estimate, five of the list include what might be subtitles:
>
> chemistry the central science 110
> film art an introduction 164
> social psychology a practical manual 286
> sociology a brief but critical introduction 101
> sociology themes and perspectives 381
>
> In fact, the relevant bibliographic records do have a $b subfield:
>
> Chemistry :$bthe central science /$cTheodore L. Brown, H. Eugene
> LeMay, Jr., Bruce E. Bursten
> Film art :$ban introduction /$cDavid Bordwell, Kristin Thompson
> Social psychology :$ba practical manual /$cedited by Glynis M.
> Breakwell, Hugh Foot and Robin Gilmour
> Sociology :$ba brief but critical introduction /$cAnthony Giddens
> Sociology :$bthemes and perspectives /$cMichael Haralambos ...
> [et al.]
>
> So with most of them, if you filed the title under just the "title
> proper", you would be a considerable distance from the title sought by
> the user. A title search on just "Sociology" gives 34 entries with the
> one word title, and a further 611 titles starting with "Sociology"!
>
> This means, that at least in these cases, the choice of an inappropriate
> filing order will give our users real problems -- not hypothetical
> problems.
>
> Giles
>
>
> #### ## Giles Martin
> ####### #### Quality Control Section
> ################# University of Newcastle Libraries
> #################### New South Wales, Australia
> ###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
> ##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
> Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
> ##
> The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
> -- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
>
--
A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 papakhi@indiana.edu
co-owner: MLA-L@listserv.indiana.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:19:48 -0700
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Adam Schiff <aschiff@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Topics outside AACR such as subject cataloguing
Comments: To: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@slc.bc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <fbw6zEJ3B8VK092yn@slc.bc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Isn't the Subject Cataloging Manual a generally accepted guideline for
creating and assigning subject headings?
**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff *
* Principal Cataloger *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 *
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* aschiff@u.washington.edu *
**************************************
On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>
> In training new cataloguers, the absence of generally accepted
> guidelines for assigning subject headings was a major handicap. Whether
> AACR should contain such guidelines is another question. Perhaps AACR
> can't be everything (integrated with MARC, include catalogue
> construction guidelines, include subject cataloguing guidelines), but we
> do have clearer guidance in descriptive cataloguing than in subject
> cataloguing or catalogue construction. We seem to be engaged in
> improving what is already the best.
>
> Mac
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 17:33:54 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Topics outside AACR such as subject cataloguing
Comments: To: aschiff@u.washington.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.3.95b.970808151835.40662D-100000@homer09.u.washington.ed
>Isn't the Subject Cataloging Manual a generally accepted guideline for
>creating and assigning subject headings?
It is the practice of one library. It is too complex for most smaller
libraries. It does nothing to help classed catalogues.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 17:06:08 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Limiting subtitles (was Filing)
Comments: To: davidpro@LIB.RUSH.EDU
In-Reply-To: <ECS9708081240B@lib.rush.edu>
>For online catalogs, rather than choose only title proper or
>complete title as the title access point, why not index both?
All the systems we use and support have a truncating feature, where
automatically (or by a character such as "?"), you get titles which
match your title search key, plus titles which begin that way.
In terms of screen display, and COM and book catalogue arrangement, all
fifty of my customers are united in wanting arrangement to observe
subtitle. The one exception is when information they don't
consider title information is included as other title information, such
as when national cataloguing agencies include the date and place of a
symposia or conference in the subtitle, or the statement of scope of a
serial. My clients want these things in a note, and don't see them as
other title information.
Perhaps we should restrict subtitle to what can be actually considered
part of the title. This would both simplify filing, and reduce problems
with changing statements found on serials defining their subject or
audience. I agree with my customers that these statements, like where
and when a symposia or conference was held, belong in notes.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
That
>way, we won't have to second-guess or spend lots of time on
>empirical studies to determine user preferences; we might also
>spend less time determining where we think users would think the
>title proper ended.
>I see many chief sources that are (intentionally?) ambiguous as to
>title proper vs. other title information. I suspect most of us do.
>For the work "Medicine PreTest self-assessment and review" which
>graphically sets off the word "Medicine" on the chief source, we
>chose "Medicine" as the title proper; that's fine, but grammatically,
>"Medicine PreTest self-assessment and review" is also a very
>logical title to look for.
>I'm suggesting that this record have title indexing under "Medicine"
>and under "Medicine : PreTest self-assessment and review,"
>perhaps not so much for the sake of where it lands in alphabetic
>arrays, but for the sake of the user who could easily type in
>"Medicine PreTest self-assessment and review" as a title search
>and not realize that we own it, because we only indexed it under the
>title "Medicine." I can't imagine that this should be a problem from
>the programming end, and it would certainly increase the potential
>for retrieval.
>-------------------------------------------------->
> David Prochazka, Cataloging Librarian
> Library of Rush University
> 600 S. Paulina--Rm. 581//Chicago, IL 60612-3874
> phone: 312-942-2731//fax: 312-942-3143
> e-mail: davidp@lib.rush.edu
>-------------------------------------------------->
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 17:21:17 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: AACR and the display of the bibliographic record
Comments: To: spiepenb@FALCON.DALLAS.ISD.TENET.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199708081633.AA11912@falcon.dallas.isd.tenet.edu>
>Someone earlier accurately stated that the code should NOT be linked to a
>particular format or system. If the information is coded correctly, and
>then formatted correctly, automation systems can be designed to extract what
>each library deems important in the cataloging record. That gives each
>library the flexibility it needs for its users.
The unit card developed over generations. Why we think a non librarian
systems person can do better, I don't know. Just because we *can* do
something (deconstruct and label parts of the MARC record) does not mean
it is a good idea.
For me, the best standard for display is the ISBD. It takes the old
unit card information and arrangement, and introduces punctuation which
makes clear what each part is. I've never seen an OPAC display which is
so clearly and easily understood as the unadorned ISBD.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 16:06:02 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: AACR2 and technology
AACR2 and catalogue production technology by Rahmatollah Fattahi (33 p.)
posted to the Future Development of AACR papers site is, I think, the
most helpful and hopeful so far.
Since I feel the question should be how to get systems developers to make
better and more coherent use of the excellent form for bibliographic
records which has evolved over generations, I was suspicious of a paper
which "aimed at re-examining the principles of AACR2 in light of the
different characteristics of the catalogue production technology" (p.24).
I need not have been concerned. While Fattahi makes some superb
suggestions for expanding the scope of AACR (standards for levels of
display for example), RF gives new underpinnings for the validity of such
concepts as main entry (used in the sense of person responsible as
opposed to record so entered in contrast to Hagler and the AACR2
glossary), corporate entry, and uniform title.
Fattahi points out new functions of the catalogue (in additional to the
traditional collocation and identification) made possible by anyword
searching and Boolean searching, and the increase in remote usage. RF
suggests the possible use of hypertext links (e.g, 100 author to author's
webpage, 260$b publisher to publisher's webpage).
Like other papers RF makes the distinction between works and
manifestations. But rather than work authority records, RF speaks of
"super records" for works. While it is not explicitly stated, I would
assume a super record would only be created where more than one
manifestation existed, which makes much more sense to me than having each
manifestation or item backed up by an authority record, in the way each
name entry is backed by an authority record. I can see a super record
uniting the manifestation records for serials which have changed titles,
standard works which have gone through multiple editions, works which
have been replicated in microform or talking book, sound recordings which
have been issued on cassette and disc, films which have been issued on
film reels, video cassette, and video disk, etc.
RF's paper is peppered with practical suggestions, for example, that
there should be more direct and less subordinate entry for corporate
bodies, in view of the limitations of one line brief display. (Linkages
could provide the collocation function for subbodies related to the
larger body.) He mentions the redundancy of such headings as "Canada.
Canadian High Commission".
To address the problem of mislabeling of fields (e.g., non authors
labeled as authors), RF suggests that AACR "prescribe the terms to be
used in labels" (p.23). In an increasingly multilingual world, it would
seem better to me to eschew labels, and depend upon the integrity of the
ISBD bibliographic description, at least in the third and forth proposed
levels of display. Also, since relationship (author, editor, translator,
illustrator, Festschrift honoree, defendant, composer, etc.) is not
contained in the entry (1XX,7XX), this does not seem programmable to me.
If you haven't time to read all the papers, I would suggest reading at
least this one, and strongly supporting Fattahi's conclusions and
recommendations. RF describes very well (or delineates as Vellucci
would say) the reality of OPAC use of bibliographic records, and makes
practical, down to earth, suggestions for amelioration. It is difficult
to believe this was written by a professor rather than a practicing
cataloguer :-{)}.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:54:25 +0100
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Robert Cunnew <robert@CUNNEW.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: AACR2 and technology
In-Reply-To: <q2M7zEJ3BMaQ092yn@slc.bc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <q2M7zEJ3BMaQ092yn@slc.bc.ca>, "J. McRee Elrod"
<mac@SLC.BC.CA> writes
>AACR2 and catalogue production technology by Rahmatollah Fattahi (33 p.)
>posted to the Future Development of AACR papers site is, I think, the
>most helpful and hopeful so far.
...
>It is difficult
>to believe this was written by a professor rather than a practicing
>cataloguer :-{)}.
I agree that some good points are made here, but regarding your last
comment above I regret I cannot agree! Only a professor could take so
long to make a few sensible points.
For me the important areas were:
MAIN ENTRY
I accept that for many libraries this is a useful concept but some of
the arguments put forward in favour (and where are the arguments
against?) don't stand up. Main entry isn't necessary to collocate
different manifestations of a work. A uniform title may be, but not
main entry.
Clearly AACR needs to retain a chapter on the assignment of main entry
points, but given that many libraries have no use for the concept this
chapter needs to be optional, in the same way that the chapter on
uniform titles is optional. This means ensuring that no other rules
*assume* main entry, which creates difficulties for those not using the
concept. For example:
1. If the body changes under which a serial receives main entry, a new
record for the subsequent issues is required.
2. Added entries for series are to be made under the appropriate
heading, ie the main entry.
3. The rules for added entries cannot be used on their own, ie a library
assigning author access points which are main entry neutral needs to
grub around in two sections for guidance. A single unified chapter on
access points is required, backed up by an optional chapter on main
entry which refers back to the main chapter.
UNIFORM TITLES
The problem here is that uniform titles *and* transcribed titles seem to
be indexed by most OPACs as "title", so a catalogue user will not know
which he has found and may therefore miss the required collocation of
manifestations. The only way round this seems to be to include within a
record a link that can be followed up by the catalogue user to find
other manifestations (including serial continuations). Couldn't this
function be served equally well by a work number? The link would enable
you to search for other records with the same number.
NAME HEADINGS
I applaud Fattahi's suggestion to introduce more direct headings for
corporate bodies. I have never been able to satisfactorily explain to
library assistants headings like
France. Direction des Assurances
I don't think it matters if the country name appears in the name or not.
We need a single rule for corporate bodies that hinges on whether or
not the name is dependent on the name of another body, ie no special
rules for government bodies. If necessary qualifiers can be added:
Direction des Assurances (France)
The point is that "France" is not regarded as a corporate body. For
that matter, neither are most conference names. Perhaps those rules
also require amendment, but I'm not sure what could be done there.
DISPLAY
Yes, recommendations would be useful here. That's all they could ever
be, of course - recommendations.
Level 1: surely this should give title and statement of responsibility,
not main entry heading and title. This would make the recommendations
main entry neutral (desirable) and in any case the statement of
responsibility usually gives more information. Qualifiers added to main
entry headings? That sounds a backward step.
Level 2: to give main entry plus statement of responsibility is hardly
appropriate at this level, given the space required.
--
Robert Cunnew
Librarian, Chartered Insurance Institute, London
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 13:14:59 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Elisabeth D Spanhoff <espanhoff@JUNO.COM>
Subject: Re: AACR2 and technology
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:54:25 +0100 Robert Cunnew writes:
MAIN ENTRY
>I accept that for many libraries this is a useful concept but some of
>the arguments put forward in favour (and where are the arguments
>against?) don't stand up. Main entry isn't necessary to collocate
>different manifestations of a work. A uniform title may be, but not
>main entry.
The best argument against main entry I've seen lately is Martha Yee's own
conference paper. How many of her difficulties do you suppose would
remain if she were not bound by the requirements of main entry? Would
there even be a need to agonize over the definition of 'work?'
>UNIFORM TITLES
>The problem here is that uniform titles *and* transcribed titles seem
>to be indexed by most OPACs as "title", so a catalogue user will not
know
>which he has found and may therefore miss the required collocation of
>manifestations. The only way round this seems to be to include within a
>record a link that can be followed up by the catalogue user to find
>other manifestations (including serial continuations). Couldn't this
>function be served equally well by a work number? The link would enable
>you to search for other records with the same number.
-
In addition to the work number (a wonderful idea) what about some field
in the record to record the kind of relationship the given manifestation
bears to the original work; so that displays such as "Adaptation of
Shakespeare's Hamlet," "Translation of Shakespeare's Hamlet" , or
strings to that effect, can be automatically generated?
Elisabeth Spanhoff
espanhoff@juno.com
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:53:49 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: AACR2 and technology
Comments: To: robert@CUNNEW.DEMON.CO.UK
In-Reply-To: <lMw+RAAxQe7zEwJS@cunnew.demon.co.uk>
>MAIN ENTRY
>
>I accept that for many libraries this is a useful concept but some of
>the arguments put forward in favour (and where are the arguments
>against?) don't stand up. Main entry isn't necessary to collocate
>different manifestations of a work. A uniform title may be, but not
>main entry.
Main entry + uniform title makes the best collocation of the
manifestations of a work; main entry makes the best collation of the
works of an author (more important in literature than elsewhere I will
admit.) Even if you were willing to depend upon an added entry to
collocate the works of an author, how in the world would you create
unique uniform titles for novels like Slate, Canary, Cobalt, and
Vermilion (all novels by Nathan Dyne); not to mention Chemistry,
Physics, etc., etc. I can't think of anything other than author a
catalogue user is likely to know. I don't want to see any more
manufactured entries like main entries for treaties! I hope these don't
make it past the next rule reivision.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 09:53:30 +1000
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: AACR2 and technology
In-Reply-To: <lMw+RAAxQe7zEwJS@cunnew.demon.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I don't understand the objection to countries as corporate bodies. The
French Republic (which is given the formal name "France" can be
responsible for publication in its own right, just as other governmental
and non governmental bodies can.
In our catalogue, we give an author entry to "France" for:
(1) its Constitution;
(2) its treaties;
(3) its laws;
(4) a legal case where the French Republic was defendant ("Nuclear
tests case: Australia v. France")
I don't think that it would be appropriate to give the entry to a
particular department, minister or agency of the French Republic in any
of these cases. Further, all except the laws have analogous works for
non-governmental organisations, which may have a fundamental document
called a "charter", "constitution", "memorandum and articles of
association" or "rules and by-laws", which enter into agreements with
other organisations, and which take part in legal cases.
Indeed, even individual human beings can enter into agreements, or be
parties to law cases, in just the same was as the French Republic can
and does.
(Incidentally, I just checked the LCNA record for "France" (n79-6404).
In my opinion, it ought to have 410 field for "French Republic" and
"R<e'>publique fran<c,>aise", since those are the official names of the
government in French and English).
Giles
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 49 215 828 (International)
Fax: +61 49 215 833 (International)
##
The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together
-- All's Well That Ends Well, IV.iii.98-99
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Robert Cunnew wrote:
> NAME HEADINGS
>
> I applaud Fattahi's suggestion to introduce more direct headings for
> corporate bodies. I have never been able to satisfactorily explain to
> library assistants headings like
>
> France. Direction des Assurances
>
> I don't think it matters if the country name appears in the name or not.
> We need a single rule for corporate bodies that hinges on whether or
> not the name is dependent on the name of another body, ie no special
> rules for government bodies. If necessary qualifiers can be added:
>
> Direction des Assurances (France)
>
> The point is that "France" is not regarded as a corporate body. For
> that matter, neither are most conference names. Perhaps those rules
> also require amendment, but I'm not sure what could be done there.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:25:07 +0100
Reply-To: mh@bodley.ox.ac.uk
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Mike Heaney <mh@BODLEY.OX.AC.UK>
Subject: Time is of the essence
In-Reply-To: <dIf7zEJ3BEaa092yn@slc.bc.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records largely
ignores the time aspect,but I suggest there is much to be gained
from an analysis, at each level (Work, Expression,
Manifestation, Item) of:
(a) how objects/entities of library interest exist over time;
(b) how or whether they change over time
(c) how or whether their existence is reflected in some sort of
physical reality, tangible or not
(d) whether the physical reality is continuous or intermittent
I believe that this would give us a better insight into what
are users are really looking for, and what will satisfy their
needs, when they conduct bibliographic searches.
Cataloguing revolves around objects/entities which can have a
physical existence over time. We can record that existence
continuously (and often do at the Item-specific level, and for
serials), or we can take what are essentially snapshots of the
state of an object at a given moment in time (for example the
editions of a Work). For some objects (e.g. performances) the
actual time-span of their existence is brief. The extent to
which this is important depends on how that existence impinges
on the real world. If a performance is recorded, we can view the
performance on different occasions and act as if the original
performance still exists. For books, the "performance" is the
metal or lithographic plates (or computer file) used to produce
the Items: the plates/files may be destroyed/deleted, but the
Items remain.
When entities (at whatever level, from Work down to Item)
change, they can do so by augmentation (adding more to what is
there) or metamorphosis (where something new replaces what was
there).
The issues relating to time become more prominent for serials
and for online resources, but they affect every aspect of
cataloguing. We have survived by fudging the issue while book
Mainfestations were the focus of cataloguing, because their
production technology allowed us to ignore these considerations;
but this has not endeared us to, for example, our colleagues
cataloguing manuscripts or rare books with provenance histories.
I shan't take up more bandwidth/diskspace on the list with this,
but I've written in more detail (if somewhat ramblingly -- this
is by no means a fully thought through position) and put it on
the Web at
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/users/mh/time978a.htm
Mike Heaney
Bodleian Library
michael.heaney@bodley.ox.ac.uk
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:53:14 EST
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "Neil R. Hughes" <nhughes@LIBRIS.LIBS.UGA.EDU>
Organization: University of Georgia Libraries
Subject: Re: Definition of work
We may well be able to do without the idea of main entry in the
bibliographic record (and of course as a result, in our online
catalogues that have made this feasible), but we cannot do without a
definition of "work" because of the extent to which the idea of
authorship and principal responsibility for intellectual content is
bound up in our users' approaches to the catalogue. I am quite
willing to enter a videorecording of Verdi's _Aida_ under title, but
I am not willing to forego an analytical added entry for:
Verdi, Giuseppe, $d 1813-1901. $t Aida.
... because there is nothing that librarians can or should do about
the fact that this is the approach that the majority of users will
take to this work or any manifestation of it that we might
arbitrarily decide is a "different work." No matter how significant
the contributions of the video's producer & director, no matter how
much effort was put into the performance by the cast, orchestra and
conductor, nor how much money was given to support the production by
the NEA or other agency, to our users, this is still Verdi's Aida
... completely present in one of its countless manifestation in the
container we have in hand. It simply ignores what music librarians
know is the primary approach by the typical user to the catalogue to
say that the video is "a new work" and that Verdi's opera--which
actually cannot be reduced to _any_ of its physical manifestations
(score, vocal score, chorus score, audio recording, video recording,
etc)--is merely "another work" that gave rise to or inspired the
"new work" we have in hand. It's certainly no waste of time to
theorize about such things, for as responsible professionals we
should certainly examine the definition of a work as it relates to
our catalogues (and Martha Yee's paper certainly does an outstanding
job of analyzing and describing the theoretical problem we face as
designers of a cataloguing code and of bibliographic files). But it
is to me all vanity and the most irresponsible sort of political
correctness to try to overturn 1,000 years of cultural conditioning
of our users and force them to see that they are "wrong" to approach
this item as if it too were principally Verdi's creation. Our job
is to provide access, and to remove the authority record for Verdi
... $t Aida from our catalogue structures and strip it from our
bibliographic files would certainly provide me with lots of
ammunition in the argument for shutting down libraries and cutting
their funding.
I contend, and I challenge anyone to disprove it, that nothing about
having an entry on the bibliographic record for the videocassette
for Aida under Verdi's name hinders access by those very few people
who think that a video of Verdi's _Aida_ isn't as much "his" as a
copy of a vocal score printed in the 1920s. To leave off such an
entry, however, would hinder access by many (all those who wish to
see all manifestations of Verdi's _Aida_ in the catalogue, to name
but a few). But in order to justify such an entry on the
bibliographic record, we need an authority record for it, and to have
an authority record, we must acknowledge that _Aida_ is a work and
the person most responsible, above all others, for its creation
(BECAUSE OF HOW OUR USERS APPROACH IT!) is Verdi--not the librettist,
the camera operators, the cinematographer, or any other person or
body responsible for a given manifestation of it. This requires at
least a clear conceptualization, if not a definition of work, whether
or not it requires the perpetuation of the concept of main entry.
I believe it would create chaos in our authority files to assert that
each new capture of a new performance of a musical or musico-dramatic
work is itself a new work requiring an authority record. Think of
the qualifiers one would need! Imagine trying to sort out which
version of Aida (for example) began life as a film and was then
transferred to videotape vs. those which began life as video
productions (this is _not_ always evident on the items!).
We must take great care that in our zeal to make the code uniform for
all types of materials that we do not obscure access for large groups
of users and supporters of our libraries. As a music cataloguer, I
am perfectly willing to have different rules for "work entry" (if we
may use such a term in place of main entry on the momentary
assumption that main entry will go away) for different styles and
types of music, Western and non-Western, as long as I am not forced
into dropping the all-important name/uniform title access that is
required by users of Western classical music just to be shown that
I'm wrong (or if I'm not, that I should be) about what the principal
means of access to the aforementioned video is by the majority of its
library users. Unfortunately much of the debate surrounding main
entry and the definition of a work has been reduced to a popularity
contest among contributors to the item in hand and stiff-lipped
assertions of "They're all equal under God's eyes!," instead of a
careful analysis of how we arrived where we are today and whether or
not a lot of that isn't absolutely on the money where access is
concerned.
The cultural conditioning that has made librarians assume that music
is more important than words when ascertaining authorship of a song
cycle has worked even more profoundly upon our users than it has upon
us, because few of them have ever even paused to consider that it
might be otherwise. Among those music librarians who are willing to
eschew main entry, many (if I may dare to speak for more than myself)
would be willing to have two, co-equal analytical added entries on
the bib. record for a song cycle: an author/title entry for the
musical work under the composer's name, and another under the poet's
name for the text(s)--and if I may, I would remind everyone that
these two titles may be utterly different, depending on the language
variant that might have been chosen by the composer and many other
factors. There must simply be the recognition that the musical work
is a new (or separate, in the case of poetry that was composed
expressly for the song cycle) work and must have its own,
concomitant authority records associated.
When the users stop looking for different manifestations of Verdi's
Aida and start looking only for known items (each of which is
arguably a "different work" just because it has different users'
fingerprints on it), then I'll stop harping on this point.
> The best argument against main entry I've seen lately is Martha Yee's own
> conference paper. How many of her difficulties do you suppose would
> remain if she were not bound by the requirements of main entry? Would
> there even be a need to agonize over the definition of 'work?'
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Neil R. Hughes
Music Cataloger
University of Georgia Libraries
Internet: nhughes@libris.libs.uga.edu
Telephone: (706) 542-1554
Fax: (706) 542-4144
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:00:35 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: franzmeier <franzmeier@SBB.SPK-BERLIN.DE>
Organization: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin / IIE
Subject: Uniform titles for serials
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In her posting of 1 August on this subject Jean Hirons wrote:
"We need to be able to identify the serial from an 'entry' for purposes
of citations, online search displays, links, and added entries without
having to look at the entire bibliographic record."
Apart from deploring the existence of six different ways to create such
a citation under present AACR/LCRI conditions, Jean's main concern seems
to be that in the case of uniform titles with their emphasis on
distinction rather than on identification this purpose is not served
well in many instances. And she goes even further and questions the
usefulness of the whole concept of uniform titles for serials.
As to the many ways to create a title short enough for citation purposes
and long enough to identify the serial, at least one of the solutions
used at present under AACR/LCRI conditions could be dispensed with, in
my opinion. It is the solution described in LCRI 25.5B(6) to qualify a
generic title (proper) by adding the responsible corporate body in the
form it has in the respective name authority record. The resulting
uniform title is nothing else than the traditional author/title-type of
citation with the sequence of the constituent elements simply reversed
(and parentheses around the corporate body instead of a colon between it
and the title proper, okay). But it conveys exactly the same
information. So why not use the traditional author/title sequence
instead which has at least two advantages: It is extremely familiar, is
the way in which works by personal authors are cited (and certain
publications of corporate bodies as well); and it is at the same time
easily derivable automatically from the existing (stored) data without
the necessity to input data into an extra field (MARC 130).
I know of course that this question is intrinsically related to the
question of "main entry". Without going into the details of this
longtime controversy, I would like to point to the fact that there are
situations, that there are titles (proper) where nobody has ever denied
that they need to be cited together with the responsible corporate body,
titles like the famous "Bulletin". Now, fortunately, there are no more
than two choices in which form the issuing body can be brought into
contact with the title (proper) in such cases: In the form of the name
in which it appears on the publication; or in its name authority form,
i. e. formalized, normalized. If the latter is used, why let it precede
the title in one case, and make it follow the title in another, as the
present practice wants it? In my opinion there is absolutely no
necessity to proceed in such a divided manner. The "normal" position of
a normalized name is that of a heading, i. e. it precedes the
descriptive parts of a catalogue entry, which begin with the title
proper. On the other hand, persons and corporate bodies in their
descriptive form (as on the piece) normally only follow the title
proper. This is their proper place, certainly not only in my opinion,
and not only in ISBD-oriented descriptions: it is the solution adopted
for ISSN key titles, as we know (with a clear emphasis on
identification, by the way). Therefore, If the whole problem of main
entry for serials were (re)considered, just for a change of perspective,
not so much from the (content-oriented) angle whether the work e. g.
records "the collective thought of the body" (21.1B2), but from the more
formal angle whether the corporate body is indispensible to name, to
cite, to identify the given serial publication, the solution could be
quite easy. Easy in so far as the decision process is inevitable anyway,
and has to happen also when the issuing body is to be added in
parentheses under current LCRI practice. There is nothing new about it,
nothing additional, nothing complicated, on the contrary: the suggested
procedure would allow for a consistent treatment of all cases where a
heading, a constructed form of name is used together with a title: and
it would save us at least one unnessesary (hybrid) variant for the
construction of citable titles.
One important difference between the solutions described above should
also be remembered in this context: Using the normalized name authority
form will always imply that national,at least not really international
forms of names come into the play. This is legitimate, of course, is
practical and may even be inevitable under certain circumstances. The
more, in my opinion, normalized headings should be kept separate, should
not mingle with the descriptive elements, should appear in a position
where everbody expects normalized elements, i. e. before or on top of
the title proper, but not following it; and even less between the Main
title and the Section title, where they have to be put in many cases
according to the present LCRI.
Günter Franzmeier
German Union Catalogue of Serials
Berlin, Germany
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:23:36 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "James E. Agenbroad" <jage@LOC.GOV>
Subject: AACR and Subject Headings
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Monday, August 11, 1997
While AACR is not used to create topical subject headings, at least
in the US isn't it widely used to create subject headings for persons,
geographic names, corporate bodies and uniform titles that are the subject
of works? If this use of AACR is valid but insufficiently acknowledged (I
didn't find it in the index) perhaps it should be stated near the
beginning of chapters 22-25.
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad ( jage@LOC.gov )
The above are purely personal opinions, not necessarily the official
views of any government or any agency of any.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:43:21 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Uniform titles for serials
Comments: To: franzmeier@SBB.SPK-BERLIN.DE
In-Reply-To: <33EF6152.44D5@sbb.spk-berlin.de>
>So why not use the traditional author/title sequence
>instead which has at least two advantages: It is extremely familiar, is
>the way in which works by personal authors are cited (and certain
>publications of corporate bodies as well); and it is at the same time
>easily derivable automatically from the existing (stored) data without
>the necessity to input data into an extra field (MARC 130).
The difficulty I would have with this is that there would be no clear
and consistent way to determine main entry for a serial. A title which
is distinctive and unique at time of cataloguing may cease the to be so
at any time. Would you have the first remain under title, while the
second identical title is under corporate body?
Responsibility for serials is so mixed, that I am quite happy with the
shift to title main entry, with the exception of those which are *about*
the issuing body such as annual reports. But the contrast between main
entry under title and *no* entry under title is too much I think. We
title trace annual reports, using " - " as opposed to "/$c" in 245 if
the title and body are not not grammatically linked. e.g., "of the"; in
which case we do a 246 with the " - ". We find it a handy search key
when the hits on the corporte body exceed the maximum our system will
report.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:25:47 +0100
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Robert Cunnew <robert@CUNNEW.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Uniform titles for serials
In-Reply-To: <33EF6152.44D5@sbb.spk-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <33EF6152.44D5@sbb.spk-berlin.de>, franzmeier
<franzmeier@SBB.SPK-BERLIN.DE> writes
>As to the many ways to create a title short enough for citation purposes
>and long enough to identify the serial, at least one of the solutions
>used at present under AACR/LCRI conditions could be dispensed with, in
>my opinion. It is the solution described in LCRI 25.5B(6) to qualify a
>generic title (proper) by adding the responsible corporate body in the
>form it has in the respective name authority record. The resulting
>uniform title is nothing else than the traditional author/title-type of
>citation with the sequence of the constituent elements simply reversed
>(and parentheses around the corporate body instead of a colon between it
>and the title proper, okay).
...
> On the other hand, persons and corporate bodies in their
>descriptive form (as on the piece) normally only follow the title
>proper. This is their proper place, certainly not only in my opinion,
>and not only in ISBD-oriented descriptions: it is the solution adopted
>for ISSN key titles, as we know (with a clear emphasis on
>identification, by the way).
I share your distaste for putting what are effectively name headings
*after* titles. However, we have adopted the opposite solution from the
one you recommend. For brief citation - check-in, box labels, issue,
labels, "in" analytics - we use a compromise between AACR and key-titles
(which many of our serials don't have and which we don't necessarily
know anyway):
* Title proper if distinctive and unique, otherwise:
* Title proper plus statement of responsibility if present, otherwise:
* Title proper plus qualifier in square brackets
We take the qualifier from the descriptive part of the record, following
the preferences established for key-titles. We also omit initial
articles from the title proper and the statement of responsibility (as
per key-titles), with the exception of "in" analytics, where we keep
them in as as per AACR.
The advantage of this approach is that all serials are cited by title
and that qualifying text is more likely to be found on the actual item.
--
Robert Cunnew
Librarian, Chartered Insurance Institute, London
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:25:49 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Enrique Gildemeister <Riquili@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Uniform titles for serials
So much of the confusion and lack of agreement about serial uniform titles
comes from the fact that they were not provided for in AACR2. It took a lot
of rule interpretations from LC to make "AACR2-style cataloging" for serials.
Rex Bross and Mitch Turitz wrote interesting articles for _The Serials
Librarian_ special issue v.22, no.1/2 on serials cataloging, outlining the
major problems in dealing with unique seial identifiers.
I think we still need uniform titles to create unique titles that can
accurately identify a serial in all the linking fields and other areas in
which there must be consistency and clarity. Serials are constantly evolving;
they are fluid. I hope that the Joint Steering Committee will consider making
uniform titles a part of the future canon of AACR and provide for them in the
rules themselves.
The biggest bone of contention has been the choice of qualifier for the
uniform title. In an older version of LCRI25.5B, place was given preference
over corporate body as qualifier. The main problem with the corporate body
qualifier is that the RI's have ruled that if the body changes, a new entry
has to be created, as if the title proper had changed. The new RI leaves
choice of qualifier to the discretion of the cataloger, but as things stand
now, a change in corporate body still necessitates a "title change".
Jean Hirons said in a recent posting to SERIALST that the catalogers in the
Serial Record Division at LC like the idea of a non-varying uniform title
which has cross-references in the 246 fields. I suggested something similar
to that myself on SERIALST, and I think it goes a long way to resolving a lot
of the problems of using uniform titles for serials.
Another problem is the fact that serial uniform titles (except series) are
not under authority control. To my knowledge, AACR2 says nothing about
authority records at all and just asks that references be made. Coming back
to the model of 130/246, the serial bibliographic record itself then behaves
like an authority record.
Even if JSC fleshes out a workable policy, I predict that there will still be
controversy and change, but at least the debate will be on the rules
themselves and not just on LC policy.
Rick Gildemeister
Serials Cataloger and Head of Cataloging
Lehman College of the City University of New York
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 10:32:58 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Uniform titles for serials
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Rick Gildemeister points out:
> So much of the confusion and lack of agreement about serial uniform titles
> comes from the fact that they were not provided for in AACR2...
and
>
> I think we still need uniform titles to create unique titles that can
> accurately identify a serial in all the linking fields and other areas in
> which there must be consistency and clarity.
but then he comes round to:
> Another problem is the fact that serial uniform titles (except series) are
> not under authority control.
But this is not strictly true. For what reason had the ISDS been set up,
one is beginning to wonder, and what are their Key Titles for? If ISDS does
what AACR2 fails to do, then why not use those titles wherever possible?
They are even printed out as such in many serials. Not in many of those
problematic cases, right, but what else is wrong with Key Titles
that AACR2 don't even make added entries (access points) for them?
After all, a key title is "The unique name assigned to a serial by the
International Serials Data System" (AACR2 glossary). Just what we need - or
not? But why not?
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 09:07:01 -0400
Reply-To: Regina Reynolds <rrey@loc.gov>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Regina Reynolds <rrey@LOC.GOV>
Subject: Key titles & uniform title
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Thank you, Bernhard Eversberg for making a point that I have been meaning
to write about. Indeed, there is no reason at all to have two fields in
serial records which are serving exactly the same function: unique
identification of a serial title. I have been long trying to have the key
title substituted for the uniform title in LC cataloging but the uniform
title seems quite entrenched.
Besides the elimination of redundancy in the record, the key title offers
the advantages of being an international standard and of being assigned by
agency in the country of publication, To answer the obvious question
about what to do if a key title is not available, I have a simple answer:
cataloging agencies should construct a key title according to the rules
set forth in the _ISDS Guidelines_. These rules could be incorporated
into cataloging codes. In CONSER records the presence or absence of an
authentication code (nsdp or iscs/c) in field 042 shows whether the key
title has been assigned or confirmed by an ISSN center or not. ISSN
centers would be encouraged to accept key titles constructed by cataloging
agencies as long as they did not conflict with another title in the ISSN
database. I absolutely agree that this could work. Why not?
If key titles were to become the accepted means of identifying serial
titles in catalog records, I can see progress on another source of
conflict and expenditure of cataloging time: arguing about title changes
in shared databases. The ISSN and key title are part of a very successful
international standard. When the ISDS Network (formerly ISDS, the
International Serials Data System) began many ISSN centers operated
independently of the cataloging departments in the national libraries
where most ISSN centers are located. Over the years, more and more
centers are combining their ISSN operations with their cataloging
operations. Also over the years the criteria for determining title
changes under AACR and under ISSN rules have come closer and closer
together. An area for great potential would be working towards complete
compatibility between ISSN rules for title changes and those in AACR and
other cataloging codes. Then the full potential of using the key title as
the unique title identifier could come into play. Then the possibility of
using the ISSN record as the *authority record* for serial titles could be
developed. There is much that can be gained from making use of the ISSN
database of over 800,000 records, authoritative records with the work of
unique title identification already completed.
I look forward to sharing further thoughts on this topic.
Regina R. Reynolds email: rrey@loc.gov
Head, National Serials Data Program voice: (202) 707-6379
Library of Congress fax (202) 707-6333
101 Independence Avenue, S.E. ISSN Web page: lcweb.loc.gov/issn/
Washington, D.C. 20540-4160
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 10:02:32 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "E. Spanhoff" <espanhoff@JUNO.COM>
Subject: Re: Definition of work
Getting rid of main entry does not mean we now start entering everything
under title or that we must forego access points, such as your example
for the video of Verdi's Aida. By all means, let's keep the authority
record for Mr. Verdi's work and continue to accommodate the bibliographic
relationships the library community has found useful to distinguish over
the years.
What concept of 'work' is required to support these relationships?
Patrick Wilson answered that question as early as 1989 (no new concept)
in his splendid paper, "Interpreting the Second Objective of the
Catalog," Library Quarterly 59:4, 339-353 (see p. 349). For clarity,
soundness, and good sense, his discussion of 'work' has never IMHO been
surpassed.. I invite you to reread it.
E. de Rijk Spanhoff
State Library of Louisiana
On Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:53:14 EST "Neil R. Hughes"
<nhughes@LIBRIS.LIBS.UGA.EDU> writes:
>We may well be able to do without the idea of main entry in the
>bibliographic record (and of course as a result, in our online
>catalogues that have made this feasible), but we cannot do without a
>definition of "work" because of the extent to which the idea of
>authorship and principal responsibility for intellectual content is
>bound up in our users' approaches to the catalogue. I am quite
>willing to enter a videorecording of Verdi's _Aida_ under title, but
>I am not willing to forego an analytical added entry for:
>
>Verdi, Giuseppe, $d 1813-1901. $t Aida.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:48:49 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Regina Reynolds <rrey@LOC.GOV>
Subject: ISDS Guidelines
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I have been asked to further identify the _ISDS Guidelines_. I apoligize
for citing a work that may not be familiar to all and furthermore for
citing an earlier title. (This is really an inexcusable error for any
serialist, let alone head of an ISSN center. Mea culpa!)
The correct title is _ISDS Manual_ published in 1983 in Paris by the
International Serials Data System, now the ISSN Network. The Manual is
currently undergoing revision but the basic rules for assigning key titles
will remain the same. Provisions for assigning key titles to electronic
works are being added and other provisions are being expanded and
clarified. The rules for creating key titles and those for creating
uniform titles of the distinguishing kind are quite similar. In the
majority of cases handled by the U.S. ISSN center, the key title and the
uniform title end up exactly the same or are adjusted to be the same so
as to reduce the possibility of future problems if one of the titles were
to change and not the other.
A significant difference is that the key title is supposed to reflect the
title at the time of ISSN registration while the uniform title is supposed
to be taken from the earliest issue. In practice, this distinction is not
always followed. However, recent discussions on this list have pointed
out the desirability of providing current identifying information for
serials, which is an ISSN practice. I believe that harmonizing the two
sets of rules is very possible and would result in mutual benefit to both
the ISSN and AACR communities.
Regina R. Reynolds email: rrey@loc.gov
Head, National Serials Data Program voice: (202) 707-6379
Library of Congress fax (202) 707-6333
101 Independence Avenue, S.E. ISSN Web page: lcweb.loc.gov/issn/
Washington, D.C. 20540-4160
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:28:41 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Collocating works (was Uniform titles for serials)
Comments: To: Riquili@AOL.COM
In-Reply-To: <970812032548_806083260@emout13.mail.aol.com>
The erudite Rick said:
>Jean Hirons said in a recent posting to SERIALST that the catalogers in the
>Serial Record Division at LC like the idea of a non-varying uniform title
>which has cross-references in the 246 fields. I suggested something similar
>to that myself on SERIALST, and I think it goes a long way to resolving a lot
>of the problems of using uniform titles for serials.
Since most of the second indicators in 246 are taken, I would prefer a
reactivation of 247 for earlier titles and a new 24X for later titles.
A set of 247 and 24X second indicators could save a lot of 246$i
or 580 keying. Whether these should be limited to small changes in
title, or replace all successive entry, could be a matter of
considerable debate.
Repeating 780/785 for all former and later titles could also get us
away from the one missing link in the chain and multiple search problem
created by successive entry. But in the absence of the super record
solution, I would prefer the 24X one.
Many of the problems the super record is proposed to solve (successive
entry for serials, the same work in multiple formats, successive
editions) could be solved by other means (247/24X, repeating 300s,
sticking with the original author, respectively).
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:28:41 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Collocating works (was Uniform titles for serials)
Comments: To: Riquili@AOL.COM
In-Reply-To: <970812032548_806083260@emout13.mail.aol.com>
The erudite Rick said:
>Jean Hirons said in a recent posting to SERIALST that the catalogers in the
>Serial Record Division at LC like the idea of a non-varying uniform title
>which has cross-references in the 246 fields. I suggested something similar
>to that myself on SERIALST, and I think it goes a long way to resolving a lot
>of the problems of using uniform titles for serials.
Why a non-varying uniform title for serials? Isn't this what the 222
Key title is supposed to be? Wouldn't a non-varying 022 ISSN help as
well?
In terms of other forms of the titles, since most of the second
indicators in 246 are taken, I would prefer a reactivation of 247 for
earlier titles and a new 24X for later titles (unless latest title is
always in 245). A set of 247 and 24X second indicators could save a lot
of 246$i or 580 keying. Whether these should be limited to small
changes in title, or replace all successive entry, could be a matter of
considerable debate.
Repeating 780/785 for all former and later titles could also get us
away from the one missing link in the chain and multiple search problem
created by successive entry. But in the absence of the super record
solution, I would prefer the 247/24X one.
Many of the problems the super record is proposed to solve (successive
entry for serials, the same work in multiple formats, successive
editions) could be solved by other means (222/247/24X, repeating 300s,
sticking with the original author, respectively).
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:36:36 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Ralph Papakhian <papakhi@INDIANA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University W&G Cook Music Library
Subject: Re: Definition of work
In-Reply-To: <19970812.100233.16486.0.espanhoff@juno.com> from "E. Spanhoff"
at Aug 12, 97 10:02:32 am
Content-Type: text
Will the conference be avoiding post-modernist theories
of the "work?"
--ralph p.
--
A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 papakhi@indiana.edu
co-owner: MLA-L@listserv.indiana.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:17:04 +0100
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Robert Cunnew <robert@CUNNEW.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Key titles & uniform title
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.93.970812083551.90440B-100000@rs8.loc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970812083551.90440B-100000@rs8.loc.gov>,
Regina Reynolds <rrey@LOC.GOV> writes
>Thank you, Bernhard Eversberg for making a point that I have been meaning
>to write about. Indeed, there is no reason at all to have two fields in
>serial records which are serving exactly the same function: unique
>identification of a serial title. I have been long trying to have the key
>title substituted for the uniform title in LC cataloging but the uniform
>title seems quite entrenched.
>
This is an attractive suggestion but I can see problems that would need
to be addressed:
1. I have never seen a key-title printed in a serial.
2. ISSNs *are* printed in serials but they're not always the current
ones, so making it harder to pick up changes in key-titles.
3. There seems to be no easy way to find out key-titles. They don't
seem to be available on the Web.
4. Key-titles don't fit into AACR and this can be confusing.
Another thing I don't like about the ISDS manual is (I believe) shared
with the LC rules for uniform titles: when a title is common to more
than one serial the first occurrence of that title registered doesn't
carry a qualifier. This is messy and doesn't help identification of the
first registered title. Is it beyond our present automated systems to
retrospectively add a qualifier?
--
Robert Cunnew
Librarian, Chartered Insurance Institute, London
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:22:00 +1000
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Key titles & uniform title
In-Reply-To: <kOrehKAATM8zEwxu@cunnew.demon.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Both AACR and the MARC format find it difficult to link bibliographic
records because of their heritage from the catalogue card era. In a card
catalogue, to link to another bibliographic record, you need to specify
the exact heading under which the user will find the record in the
catalogue.
In an computerised catalogue, other means are available of linking
records, which need not be visible to either the user or the cataloguer.
For example, pages in the WWW are linked by URLs, which need not be typed
in by the user (except perhaps for the first entry point). You move from
page to page by pointing and clicking at references. Just the same could
happen in an OPAC.
In such an environment, the cataloguer would need to tell the
computerised system what links to create, in the case of new titles.
(For old titles, there would be a default assumption that the existing
unique identifiers, such as key titles, ISSNs and uniform titles, were
accurately specified). The cataloguer would point at two different
bibliographic records, and tell the system something like "This is an
earlier/later title relationship), and there could be a system generated
link between the two.
For the user looking at one title, the minimum they need be told is that
links exist, e.g. "This journal has now changed its title." They could
follow up that link if they wished.
The same can be done for monographic relationships, e.g. "This work has
been translated into other languages" or "This work has been peformed on
film or video".
But indicating these links through uniform titles is a remnant of the
card catalogue. In fact, even book catalogues often didn't need to use
uniform titles for this purpose, since relationships could be show by
records being printed next to each other on the same page.
Giles
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 2 4921 5828 (International)
Fax: +61 2 4921 5833 (International)
##
[Note that the telephone numbers have just changed. From inside
Australia, the area code is now (02).]
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:06:00 +0200
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Knut Hegna <knut@DTV.DK>
Subject: Re: ISDS Guidelines
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Aug 97 11:48:49 EDT."
<Pine.A32.3.93.970812111200.90440E-100000@rs8.loc.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The ISSN Network has a www-site at:
http://www.issn.org/
--
Knut Hegna - knut@dtv.dk
DTV, Udviklingslaboratoriet, Box 777, 2800 Lyngby, Danmark
Tlf + 45 45 25 73 51 / Faks + 45 45 88 89 84
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:37:07 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Key titles & uniform title
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
In reply to the suggestion to consider the ISDS Key Title as a unique
identifier for a serial, Robert Cunnew points to a few problems:
> This is an attractive suggestion but I can see problems that would need
> to be addressed:
>
> 1. I have never seen a key-title printed in a serial.
>
> 2. ISSNs *are* printed in serials but they're not always the current
> ones, so making it harder to pick up changes in key-titles.
>
> 3. There seems to be no easy way to find out key-titles. They don't
> seem to be available on the Web.
>
> 4. Key-titles don't fit into AACR and this can be confusing.
>
Of course these problems need to be addressed. The ISDS Key Title is,
however, the closest thing currently in existence to a unique identifier,
and at 800.000 records the available database is not exactly small.
Thus, NOT to build on this but instead start all over constructing unique
identifiers where presently there are none would be the closest thing
to re-inventing the wheel.
It is to be hoped that this matter gets high priority at the meeting,
and from what Regina Reynolds writes one can be confident that the
ISDN center (located inside LC!) will be competent to handle what
problems remain to be addressed.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:23:06 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "Kevin M. Randall" <kmr@NWU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Key titles & uniform title
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 09:07 AM 8/12/97 -0400, Regina Reynolds wrote:
>An area for great potential would be working towards complete
>compatibility between ISSN rules for title changes and those in AACR and
>other cataloging codes. Then the full potential of using the key title as
>the unique title identifier could come into play. Then the possibility of
>using the ISSN record as the *authority record* for serial titles could be
>developed. There is much that can be gained from making use of the ISSN
>database of over 800,000 records, authoritative records with the work of
>unique title identification already completed.
I have always been a firm believer in corporate body main entry for serials,
and believe it would eliminate much of the need for uniform titles. It is
encouraging to see that at least the concept of main entry is still being
advocated in some of these papers, whether or not its use will be expanded.
Perhaps a workable rule would be something to the effect of: "If the title
of the publication is nondistinct (such as "Journal"), or if the name of the
corporate body is in the title, or if *in the cataloger's judgment* the
corporate body has a relationship with the publication such that it would be
unlikely the publication would exist apart from that body, enter the title
under the name of the corporate body." Yes, that last "or" clause leaves
lots of room for interpretation, but the rule would be infinitely easier to
work with than the current unwieldy rule and its even more unwieldy LCRI.
However, that would not completely eliminate the need for uniform titles.
And after reading Regina's excellent argument for use of key title, I am
leaning in favor of that approach, at least for the cases where corporate
body main entry is not an option, if not for all cases. (I would still
argue for extended use of corporate body main entry.)
The idea of the ISSN record as the authority record is intriguing, and would
make a lot of sense, IF these records were readily available! I have
wondered for a very long time WHY the ISSN records are not in an
international database such as OCLC. They seem to be available only by
purchase on CD-ROM or tape from ISSN. Such an important resource should be
just as easily available as the CONSER records are. Until that happens, I
would want to hold off on making key title the "authoritative" form of the
title in AACR.
Kevin M. Randall
Head, Serials Cataloging Section
Northwestern University Library
Evanston, IL 60208-2300
email: kmr@nwu.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax: (847) 491-7637
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:51:13 +0100
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Robert Cunnew <robert@CUNNEW.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Key titles & uniform title
In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970813092307.198f9c5e@hecky.acns.nwu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <2.2.16.19970813092307.198f9c5e@hecky.acns.nwu.edu>, "Kevin
M. Randall" <kmr@NWU.EDU> writes
>Perhaps a workable rule would be something to the effect of: "If the title
>of the publication is nondistinct (such as "Journal"), or if the name of the
>corporate body is in the title, or if *in the cataloger's judgment* the
>corporate body has a relationship with the publication such that it would be
>unlikely the publication would exist apart from that body, enter the title
>under the name of the corporate body."
That sounds rather familiar - AACR 1967, chapter 6 if I recall rightly?
Do we really want to go back to that?
I remember trying to explain to library assistants why some of the
check-in cards in our Roneodex index were under title, some were under
corporate body and some were under the name of the country. In our
online check-in system everything is under title. There may be several
screens of "Annual report" but it's easy to find the one you want by
following the qualifiers and the principle is easy to grasp.
--
Robert Cunnew
Librarian, Chartered Insurance Institute, London
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:56:19 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "James E. Agenbroad" <jage@LOC.GOV>
Subject: AACR and Subject Headings (2)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Wednesday, August 13, 1997
After sending my earlier message on this topic I came across the kind
of statement I had in mind in the 1949 "ALA cataloging rules for author
and title entries" on page 82 in the first rule for personal authors: "The
form adopted for a given person is used without variation whenever it
occurs as a heading, whether as author, added entry, or subject." I did
not find any similar statement in the first rule for corporate bodies
(page 126).
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad ( jage@LOC.gov )
The above are purely personal opinions, not necessarily the official
views of any government or any agency of any.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:22:47 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Key titles & uniform title
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Kevin M. Randall <kmr@NWU.EDU> writes
>
>Perhaps a workable rule would be something to the effect of: "If the title
>of the publication is nondistinct (such as "Journal"), or if the name of the
>corporate body is in the title, or if *in the cataloger's judgment* the
>corporate body has a relationship with the publication such that it would be
>unlikely the publication would exist apart from that body, enter the title
>under the name of the corporate body."
>
BUT this would dictate
American Chemical Society: Journal
and
Association of Computing Machinery: Communications
instead of
Journal of the American Chemical Society
and
Communications of the ACM
That's how they are always cited and looked for. And these are the most
important and most-cited periodicals in chemistry and computer science.
Does anybody go looking for them under the corporte names, I wonder?
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:20:17 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Linking. Part 1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
To link or not to link, and how
-------------------------------
Part 1: Concepts. Authority linking
In this posting, the first of two, I try to clarify some concepts of
record linking. Not everybody reading this list will need that. I don't
mean to lecture, but in the course of my activities I have come across too
many misunderstandings and misconceptions to assume that everybody talking
about linking, or listening and asking no questions, has a firm grasp of
the subject. If you do, just skip this - many statements will appear banal
to you. Or correct me where I'm wrong.
The second part won't come before next week. It will deal with links
between bibliographic records, and more specifically, records for the
parts of series or multipart publications. Which, in fact, is my primary
motivation for all this. It is the biggest remaining stumbling block
for improving exchange between Germany and the AACR/MARC world.
What is a link?
---------------
Every cataloger establishes links between records many times a day, but
not all are aware of this fact.
If you look up "Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilich (1840-1893)" in the name
authorities and faithfully transcribe or copy this into a 100, 600 or
700, you establish a link to the authority record.
Likewise, if you look up "Afro-American musicians" in the Red Books and
copy it into a 650, this constitutes a logical link from your bib record
to the subject authority record - whether you have it in your local system
or not. Programmers call this type of links "textual links" because it is
a text string that connects both records. As soon as you change one
character in the text string, you break the link - as far as the computer
is concerned, who (unlike humans) has great difficulty or finds it
impossible to match strings that are not 100% identical. If the change
is made in a bib record, it is just this one record that is affected and
loses its logical connection.
If the change is made in the 1XX field of the authority record, ALL bib
records linked to it get disconnected at once. Sophisticated software
should prevent the cataloger from doing either and thus protect the
data from disruption.
But is a "true" link not something better than this, something fundamentally
different from a text string identical to another text string? Devices like
a "next generation hypertext link", or "system generated links", sound like
they must be of an altogether different character! But no, they are not.
On the data level, all links are basically alike. There is no such thing
as an immaterial, direct, ethereal, intrinsic, magic rubber band connection
between any two records. (Don't laugh, some people seem to have mental
images like these.)
At the root of it there is always a character string (not always displayed
by the software) in the one record that matches a character string
in the other record, nothing else. IDnrs are character strings as well,
and so are URLs.
It all depends on the software whether or not this link does anything,
whether it is purely logical and abstract or has any function, and whether
and how well it is protected against change (meaning disruption).
And what of exchange? CAN links be exchanged?
Once a record goes on exchange, all it consists of is characters or bytes.
In order to exchange a link, one needs to exchange both ends of the link.
Nothing more, but maybe less: if the receiving system already has one of
the two records, only the new one has to be exchanged (downloaded).
But beware: the other record may be a new, better version, and the one
locally owned may have its own local additions.
However:
The receiving software must be able to "see" there is a link and then use
its own ways and means to put it in effect - or there will be no link in the
recipient's local system.
Assuming for the moment that all systems can handle links, the important
distinction to be made is between DATA links and INFORMAL links, like
in contents notes or other notes fields. The latter unfold their beauty only
in the eye of the (human) beholder, reading something like "Previous ed.
under the title 'Twilight of the demigods'", and the reader will have to
go ahead and search for that title, the software cannot present this sort
of link as a hypertext button to click on, for example. This can be done
only for DATA links, consisting of controlled character strings as
described.
The use of INFORMAL links is largely a passive one, from the POV of the
catalog software: human readers have to realize it and take action to
follow it. This certainly holds for everything in contents notes, despite
keyword indexing.
DATA links can be categorized into TEXTUAL and IDENTIFIER links:
** USMARC data currently use TEXTUAL links exclusively; Names, subject
headings, uniform titles are all recorded as text strings in the bib
records. One has to take great care to transcribe those entry forms
faithfully, or use cut-and-paste facilities.
Advantages:
** The links are immediately humanly readable;
** There is no trouble with exchange: bib records are usable even when
the authority records are absent.
Disadvantages:
** These links are easily broken (catalogers have to be instructed
not to make even minor "corrections", or the software must
prevent it)
** esp., the 1XX in the authority records must never be changed
unless all occurrences in the bib records are changed as well.
On the large (national) scale, changes in established headings are
therefore extremely problematic and costly.
** IDENTIFIER links consist of IDnrs instead of the text strings
(though IDnrs are text strings too).
One might have something like
100 10 $3n98765
instead of
100 10 $aTchaikovsky, Peter Ilich,$d1840-1893
assuming n98765 is the IDnr of Peter Ilich's authority record.
Advantages:
** Changes in established headings are not problematic, e.g.,
Tchaikovsky's form of name may be changed in the authority
record's 100 without having to change so many bib records as
long as the IDnr remains unchanged (there's rarely a need to
change an IDnr).
** Savings in storage space (though nobody cares anymore).
Disadvantages:
** Link is not humanly readable, software has to be in place to
insert the name for the number in all displays and indexes.
That means:
** Exchange is more problematic: authority record has to be present
or bib record is not usable (not correctly indexable
or displayable).
A problem with authority records, for both kinds of links, is this:
Changes made later in the central authority file don't automatically
get transferred into all local systems affected. Therefore, the number of
outdated headings and references, and lacking references, will steadily
increase on the local level. This calls, at least, for periodic revisions
of local authority files. Links don't take care of themselves! Software has
to be provided to see after them.
Whereas presently there are no linkage IDnrs in USMARC exchange records, it
should be easy to enhance these records with an extra subfield $3 (or
whatever) in every authority controlled field, carrying the IDnr. Then,
local systems could either use or discard these number subfields, or retain
them for later use if they cannot utilize them right away. Since the $a
would be redundant (and would require maintenance!) a local system would
ideally not have the $a but only the $3 with the number. Technically, this
is perfectly possible, but as of now, certainly not all local systems operate
in this way. If they do, they have to generate their own $3 (or whatever)
using their own procedures since USMARC exchange data don't provide it.
In the German format MAB2, as in UNIMARC ($3, incidentally), there already
is provision for IDnrs of related records, authority or bibliographic.
It is all a matter of definition (and then implementation into software)
what links can be accomodated in what fields. It is not a built-in property
of any field that it can or cannot support a link. Theoretically, there can
be many links in one field (e.g., several subfields $3 might occur in a
note field). It is also possible that one particular field has a $3 in
certain cases and a $a in others. As long as USMARC says nothing about
this, everything is possible in local implementations. They can differ
widely in their provision and functionality of linkage while utilizing
exactly the same data.
Up until now, I have been referring largely to name and subject authorities
as candidates for links with bib records.
The second posting will deal with links between bib records, and more
specifically, links between parts of series or multipart publications.
Part 2 will begin with the concept of "bidirectional" links, and
whether or not they are useful or necessary to have.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek Braunschweig
Germany
B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:03:17 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "Kevin M. Randall" <kmr@NWU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Key titles & uniform title
Comments: To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 08:22 AM 8/14/97 METDST, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
>Kevin M. Randall <kmr@NWU.EDU> writes
>>
>>Perhaps a workable rule would be something to the effect of: "If the title
>>of the publication is nondistinct (such as "Journal"), or if the name of the
>>corporate body is in the title, or if *in the cataloger's judgment* the
>>corporate body has a relationship with the publication such that it would be
>>unlikely the publication would exist apart from that body, enter the title
>>under the name of the corporate body."
>>
>
>BUT this would dictate
>
>American Chemical Society: Journal
>and
>Association of Computing Machinery: Communications
>
>instead of
>
>Journal of the American Chemical Society
>and
>Communications of the ACM
>
>That's how they are always cited and looked for. And these are the most
>important and most-cited periodicals in chemistry and computer science.
>Does anybody go looking for them under the corporte names, I wonder?
Bernhard seems to think I was advocating a return to pre-AACR2 form of entry
for serials. I was talking simply about choice of main entry, and said
nothing at all about changing the way the title is transcribed. The titles
mentioned above would be entered as:
American Chemical Society.
Journal of the American Chemical Society.
Association of Computing Machinery.
Communications of the ACM.
This does nothing at all to prevent people finding them under their titles
proper.
Kevin M. Randall
Head, Serials Cataloging Section
Northwestern University Library
Evanston, IL 60208-2300
email: kmr@nwu.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax: (847) 491-7637
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 07:25:04 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
Comments: To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
In-Reply-To: <751B5072FEB@buch.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de>
>A problem with authority records, for both kinds of links, is this:
>Changes made later in the central authority file don't automatically
>get transferred into all local systems affected.
As the bibliographic utility Catss works, the ASN (authority sequence
number) is substituted for the text in the entries of the bibliographic
record. Our records are in our own files on their machine. When LC
changes the text of an authority, that change displays automatically
when our records containing that ASN are viewed. We download our
records the 15th of each month for our most active file, annually for
our less active ones.
It astounds me that this arrangement seems unique to Catss.
Perhaps before we go too far attempting to improve AACR and MARC, we
should work on creating systems which make better use of what we already
have.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:21:26 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Regina Reynolds <rrey@LOC.GOV>
Subject: Re: Key titles & uniform title
In-Reply-To: <kOrehKAATM8zEwxu@cunnew.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Robert Cunnew wrote:
> In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970812083551.90440B-100000@rs8.loc.gov>,
> Regina Reynolds <rrey@LOC.GOV> writes
> >Thank you, Bernhard Eversberg for making a point that I have been meaning
> >to write about. Indeed, there is no reason at all to have two fields in
> >serial records which are serving exactly the same function: unique
> >identification of a serial title. I have been long trying to have the key
> >title substituted for the uniform title in LC cataloging but the uniform
> >title seems quite entrenched.
> >
> This is an attractive suggestion but I can see problems that would need
> to be addressed:
>
> 1. I have never seen a key-title printed in a serial.
>
> 2. ISSNs *are* printed in serials but they're not always the current
> ones, so making it harder to pick up changes in key-titles.
>
> 3. There seems to be no easy way to find out key-titles. They don't
> seem to be available on the Web.
>
> 4. Key-titles don't fit into AACR and this can be confusing.
>
> Another thing I don't like about the ISDS manual is (I believe) shared
> with the LC rules for uniform titles: when a title is common to more
> than one serial the first occurrence of that title registered doesn't
> carry a qualifier. This is messy and doesn't help identification of the
> first registered title. Is it beyond our present automated systems to
> retrospectively add a qualifier?
>
> --
> Robert Cunnew
> Librarian, Chartered Insurance Institute, London
Key titles are available in several ways: the CONSER database (available
on the major U.S. shared cataloging databases, in the Library of Congress
online catalog, on U.S. MARC tapes) contains key titles for all U.S. and
Canadian serials which have been assigned ISSN, and for many core serials
from around the world. The ISSN database is available as a CD-ROM and
as a tape service from the ISSN International Centre (20 rue Bachaumont,
Paris 75002 France, http://www.issnic.com). Availability over the Web
is currently being tested by ISSN centers. Terms of access to the Web
are currently under discussion.
If key titles were to be adopted by AACR as the unique identifier for
serials, the rules for creating key titles would have to be included in
AACR so that catalogers could create provisional key titles when
authenticated key titles were not available.
Finally, creation of key titles differs from LC rules for uniform titles
by requiring retrospective qualification of key titles originally assigned
without qualifiers. Thus, when the second occurrence of a title
necessitates that title be qualified, the first title is amended by adding
a qualifier. To circumvent this need somewhat, all one-word titles are
qualified when the ISSN is first assigned, even if there are no conflicts.
Regina R. Reynolds email: rrey@loc.gov
Head, National Serials Data Program voice: (202) 707-6379
Library of Congress fax (202) 707-6333
101 Independence Avenue, S.E. ISSN Web page: lcweb.loc.gov/issn/
Washington, D.C. 20540-4160
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:18:53 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Cynthia Watters <WATTERS@MYRIAD.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
Comments: To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
I appreciated the posting about linkage, and might use this opportunity to
digress into my concern about linkages which was occasioned by my vendor's
(DRA) problems.
That is, the linkage of authority records with each other. I think we
really need to establish hierarchies of authority records so that
the authority record for Huis clos, for example, is linked to and "hung
off" the authority record for Sartre. Same thing for subject authorities
with subfields. Instead of independent authorities for the $a heading
and that for the $a same heading with $x, y, or z attached.
Our vendor says they can't link a heading with multiple authority records,
so if a name-title heading is linked to the name-title authority record
it can't also be linked to the name authority record. Likewise, of course,
a change to the name in the name authority record does not automatically
cause a change in the same name in name-title authority records.
I think this is a fundamental problem for references display and functioning
in OPACs, for ordering of hits on hit lists, and for maintenance.
Does anyone have any ideas about how to convert so, for example, a
name title authority record is a "sub-record" linked to a name authority
record? Or any disagreements with the need?
Thanks,
Cynthia Watters
Catalog Librarian
Middlebury College
watters@myriad.middlebury.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:49:15 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Impact on bibliographic utilities
What would happen in local systems which don't even have access point
authorities, if work authorities or super work records were introduced?
What would be the impact on bibliographic utilities of either work
authority records (one for each work even if represented by a single
manifestation?) or super work records (representing only works which
have more than one manifestation?)?
Is anyone from the bibliographic utilities reading the papers and list?
If so, why aren't you contributing? If this raises utility costs, we
would be priced out of our market niche. Wouldn't there be an impact on
library budgets in these lean years?
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:47:13 CDT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Jim E Cole <jecole@IASTATE.EDU>
Subject: Key title
There has been some discussion on this list regarding the use of the
key title as a uniform title for serials. To be sure, arguments can be
advanced in favor of this proposal. I do hope, however, that the inherent
problems will also be fully discussed.
One of the problems is that there are two standards for the creation
of key title for serials with generic titles proper--one for serials
published within the territorial confines of the CONSER Program, allowing
the use of data from authority files following the space-hyphen-space, and
the other for serials published in the rest of the world, requiring the
transcription of the "name of the issuing body in the sequence and form
given on the title source" (ISDS Manual, p. 42) The CONSER provision,
actually an exception to the general rule, brings the AACR2 uniform title
and the key title into close alignment. One often sees very little
difference between key titles constructed according to the general rule and
those constructed according to the CONSER exception. Sometimes, however,
this is not the case. To use a Canadian example, one that does *not* have a
key title, the difference in the two is rather striking:
(Key title according to CONSER exception)
Working paper - Ontario Agricultural College. Dept. of
Agricultural Economics and Business
(Key title according to the general ISDS standard)
Working paper - Department of Agricultural Economics and
Business, University of Guelph
Do we want such a mixture of headings in our catalogs, depending upon the
place of publication of the serial? If we believe that our libraries
acquire so few serials from outside the territorial confines of CONSER that
this would have little effect if any upon our catalogs, we seem to have a
rather provincial outlook on things.
Another problem is the fact that not all serials have key titles at
the time a library catalogs them; some are so ephemeral in nature or local
in coverage that they may never have one. Do we want to set these aside,
ask the authorized agency to assign a key title and ISSN, and then catalog
them later, when the key title has been assigned? Does this delay serve our
users well?
The incorporation of key titles into our catalogs--and the use of
the ISSN records as authority records--would require their storage and
maintenance in our catalogs, and this involves cost. Do we want to pay for
this?
We must also consider the fact that there is no monographic
equivalent of key title. The use of the key titles as uniform titles for
serials would create a separate rule for serials, or a special one at least.
Do we really want to do this?
AACR2 uniform titles for "generic title" serials, and their CONSER
key title equivalents, may be properly described as "posterior corporate
entry." All that has been accomplished is the transposition of the
corporate heading to the end of the title. We have spent a great deal of
time in the past seventeen years creating posterior corporate entries; they
now take up a fair amount of computer storage space for our OPACs. We could
almost completely avoid the use of uniform titles for "generic title" serials
merely by adopting a rule applicable to *all* publications, one that would
require the entry of a publication issued by or under the authority of a
corporate body under the name of the body if the title proper of the
publication consisted solely of a generic term or phrase that did not
adequately identify the publication except when taken in conjunction with
the name of the body. This is rule simplifcation; and is this not what we
are to be about?
Jim Cole, Editor
The Serials Librarian
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:12:54 -0700
Reply-To: Daniel CannCasciato <dcc@mumbly.lib.cwu.edu>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Daniel CannCasciato <dcc@MUMBLY.LIB.CWU.EDU>
Subject: AACR and systems
In-Reply-To: <970814111853.9515@myriad.middlebury.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hello All,
After reading Fattahi's paper and after having read many of the postings
on this list, I'm wondering which is the cart and which is the horse: the
code or the catalog display?
While I like the idea of the super record (and will be trying to test it
locally to see if I can make it work) many of the other suggestions for
changes to AACR seem to be system dependent. Or, more precisely, the
suggested changes are spurred by system inadequacies and system strengths.
(Inadequacies appear to be winning the battle at this point.) To me, this
is a flaw. While the two are teamed, to be sure, I feel the code should be
driving the system vendors to take advantage of what we do.
For example, the fact that many corporate headings are too long to display
on one line is not, in my opinion, a cataloging problem. It's a display
problem. We should complain to our vendors about it. If we did so
collectively, I bet we could get some real results.
The fact that corp. names are not conventionalized
WHO Commission ...
vs. World Health Organization. $b Advisory ... "
is not really much of an issue if you have a system that makes use of
authority records. [There are other issues in this area that deserve
atttention, I agree. Fattahi makes some good suggestions.]
But many of us don't have systems that utilize authority records. Many of
us have systems that don't display author-title references very
intelligibly. But should we adapt the code to fit a vendors interest (or
lack of interest)? I'd say no. Especially as the code is being used by
many many libraries that don't have a vendor. Writing a code to take
advantage of hypertext links only makes sense if you have hypertext links
available.
Daniel
-------------------------------------------
Daniel CannCasciato
Head of Cataloging and Interlibrary Loans
Central Washington University Library
400 East 8th Ave
Ellensburg WA 98926-7548
509 963-2120 509 963-3684 (FAX)
dcc@cwu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 13:17:49 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Regina Reynolds <rrey@LOC.GOV>
Subject: Correction: ISSN URL
In-Reply-To: <9708141547.AA11045@isua2.iastate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
The correct URL for the ISSN International centre is as was given earlier
on the list:
http://www.issn.org
Regina R. Reynolds email: rrey@loc.gov
Head, National Serials Data Program voice: (202) 707-6379
Library of Congress fax (202) 707-6333
101 Independence Avenue, S.E. ISSN Web page: lcweb.loc.gov/issn/
Washington, D.C. 20540-4160
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:02:07 +0000
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Pamela Simpson <p2s@PSULIAS.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Key Title
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jim E. Cole wrote:
>> Another problem is the fact that not all serials have key titles at
>>the time a library catalogs them; some are so ephemeral in nature or local
>>in coverage that they may never have one. Do we want to set these aside,
>>ask the authorized agency to assign a key title and ISSN, and then catalog
>>them later, when the key title has been assigned? Does this delay serve our
>>users well?
I think the idea would be for all serials catalogers to assign a key title
at the time of cataloging, using the same standard that ISSN centers
currently use. Although these key titles would not yet be authenticated by
an ISSN center, (and some never would be, if the title never received an
ISSN), they could be created by anyone who possesses the level of expertise
required to correctly formulate the uniform titles currently assigned.
Although the discrepancy in the form of name that Jim pointed out would
certainly have to be resolved, the rules are really quite similar.
>>
>> The incorporation of key titles into our catalogs--and the use of
>>the ISSN records as authority records--would require their storage and
>>maintenance in our catalogs, and this involves cost. Do we want to pay for
>>this?
Using ISSN records as "authority" records for serials does not necessarily
mean that they would be used in the same way name headings are. Clearly, we
would all need access to the ISSN database, but we would not necessarily
have to store them in our catalogs to be used to flip headings or refer
users to different forms. The work of identifying a serial in the process
of assigning an ISSN involves a kind of "authority" work that has not been
formally recognized. ISSN catalogers search the ISSN database and spend a
great deal of time researching conflicts and resolving questions regarding
the history of titles, determining whether or not a serial is "the same
one" that was formerly published in another country, etc. Steve Shadle and
I presented a workshop at the 1993 NASIG conference on the use of the ISSN
database as a cataloging resource; a report of this workshop appears in the
proceedings of that conference (Serials Librarian 24 (1994) no. 3/4). One
of the great advantages of using ISSN records as an authoritative source is
that ISSN centers are often in touch with the publishers, and so are in a
position to determine relationships and histories which are often not
described explicitly on the pieces themselves.
It is unfortunate that this rich resource has not been easily available to
catalogers. The CD has been available since 1993, but it is quite
expensive. I hope that the International Center will find a way to offer
affordable web access. This standard could offer a great deal more to the
library community if it were more readily available. Unfortunately, funding
for the ISSN program, both in the U.S. and internationally, is a perpetual
problem, and the International Center may not be able to afford to offer
free access to the records.
>> We must also consider the fact that there is no monographic
>>equivalent of key title. The use of the key titles as uniform titles for
>>serials would create a separate rule for serials, or a special one at least.
>>Do we really want to do this?
Yes, I think we do. Or at least, I don't think we should rule something out
just because it involves a separate rule for serials. Trying to accomodate
items that are published serially with the same rules we use for things
that are published only once reminds me of my favorite quote from this
year's NASIG, by Carroll Davis, "Cataloging a monograph is like performing
an autopsy; cataloging a serial is like studying a gazelle in the wild."
Pamela Simpson
***********************************
Pamela Simpson
Serials and Electronic Resources Cataloging Librarian
E506 Pattee Library
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802-1805
(814) 865-1755 Fax: (814) 863-7293
p2s@psulias.psu.edu
***********************************
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 16:23:00 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "Disipio Mary F." <MFD@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA>
Subject: Beyond MARC
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Please note that the following conference paper is now available on
the JSC Web as a HTML document
Beyond MARC by Mick Ridley.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:54:17 +1000
Reply-To: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
In-Reply-To: <Qsu8zEJ3BoYD092yn@slc.bc.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
The Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN) works in a somewhat similar
way to Catss as Mac just described it. Since ABN was based on WLN
software, the same would be true of WLN.
Internally in ABN, headings in the 1XX, 440, 6XX, 7XX and 8XX fields (in
bib. records) are represented by the system number of the vocabulary
record. When the vocabulary record is changed, all the linked
bibliographic records are channged as well (except for a few bugs in the
system!)
When you change a heading in a bib. record, the system looks for a match
in the vocabulary file, and links to the match if there is one;
otherwise, it creeates a new vocabulary record. Similarly for new bib.
records coming into the system: headings either link to existing bib.
records or create new vocabulary records.
(They are called vocabulary records until someone checks to make sume
they are valid. Only after they are validated are they called authority
records.)
Unfortunately, the only link with LC's authority files is through the
kind of link that Bernhard Eversberg described in his "Linking. Part 1"
message: that is, through the text matching the correct LC heading. LC
authority records are not loaded into ABN.
However, most people using ABN are often unaware of the system that I
have described, unless the system breaks down. When you display a
bibliographic record, or output it to a local system, you see the
headings from the vocabulary records, and not the system numbers that are
really present in the bibliographic records.
Giles
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 2 4921 5828 (International)
Fax: +61 2 4921 5833 (International)
##
[Note that the telephone numbers have just changed. From inside
Australia, the area code is now (02).]
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> As the bibliographic utility Catss works, the ASN (authority sequence
> number) is substituted for the text in the entries of the bibliographic
> record. Our records are in our own files on their machine. When LC
> changes the text of an authority, that change displays automatically
> when our records containing that ASN are viewed. We download our
> records the 15th of each month for our most active file, annually for
> our less active ones.
>
> It astounds me that this arrangement seems unique to Catss.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:39:04 +1200
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Ruth Lewis <Ruth.Lewis@NATLIB.GOVT.NZ>
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
Comments: To: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Thanks for that Giles.
The New Zealand Bibliographic Network (NZBN) uses much the same software,
and does the same things with vocabulary headings as ABN. The name
or subject heading is not actually part of the bib. record, the bib
record just contains a link to the vocabulary heading. But to the
user it looks seamless (most of the time).
NZBN manages to exchange data with ABN, LC and others, as well as
provide data to local systems. I'm not sure how this is done, but
the problem of data exchange using this type of linkage is obviously
not insurmountable.
Ruth Lewis
Ruth Lewis
Music Room
National Library of New Zealand
ruth.lewis@natlib.govt.nz
Telephone (64 4) 474 3000 ext. 8888
Toll free 0800 736 561
Fax (64 4) 474 3042
These opinions are my own and are not necessarily National Library of New Zealand policy.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:48:15 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
Comments: To: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9708150903.A7947-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Giles S Martin <ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>The Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN) works in a somewhat similar
>way to Catss as Mac just described it. Since ABN was based on WLN
>software, the same would be true of WLN.
When we investigated WLN, we found it did not have cascade, that is, if
you had a standard heading with a free floating subdivision, that string
had to be established if it was to verify. But then, when the main
heading changed, this new authority remained unchanged. Has this
problem been solved on ABN? Why is ABN abondoning its WLN clone?
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:05:32 +1000
Reply-To: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Giles S Martin <ulgsm@DEWEY.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
In-Reply-To: </k58zEJ3BUmJ092yn@slc.bc.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
As far as ABN is concerned, each combination of a main heading with a
subheading is a different string of characters, with no relationship
except that they file near each other. So you can establish a heading
with a subheading without also having the heading by itself. For
example, you can have the LCSH string "Education--Research--Australia"
without also having "Education" and "Education--Research".
Furthermore, if you wanted to change "Education--Research" to
"Educational research", you would have to change all of the hundreds of
combinations starting with those words, one by one.
There are a lot of small reasons why ABN is changing, and one big one.
The big reason is that the system design makes it difficult to makes
small changes! So there a lot of known bugs in ABN, and a lot of
improvements that people would like to make, but it would be easier to
fix these by getting a new system that by fixing the problems one by one.
Giles
#### ## Giles Martin
####### #### Quality Control Section
################# University of Newcastle Libraries
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
##### ## ### Phone: +61 2 4921 5828 (International)
Fax: +61 2 4921 5833 (International)
##
[Note that the telephone numbers have just changed. From inside
Australia, the area code is now (02).]
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> When we investigated WLN, we found it did not have cascade, that is, if
> you had a standard heading with a free floating subdivision, that string
> had to be established if it was to verify. But then, when the main
> heading changed, this new authority remained unchanged. Has this
> problem been solved on ABN? Why is ABN abondoning its WLN clone?
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:07:56 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Ralph Papakhian <papakhi@INDIANA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University W&G Cook Music Library
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
In-Reply-To: <970814111853.9515@myriad.middlebury.edu> from "Cynthia Watters"
at Aug 14, 97 11:18:53 am
Content-Type: text
Greetings,
I agree that what Cynthia describes is a fundmental problem and am
baffled by the inability of current systems to account for the
heirarchies required. As an explanation, all I can guess is that
the heirarchy assumed by AACR2 is a function of the flat/card file and
the technology of the card catalog. The end product of that technology
has not been dpulicated by online systems.
Imagine the large card catalog room with thousands of card trays.
One enters the room views guides of various kinds: subject, authors, etc.
One walks to authors and sees guides: A, B, C, etc.
One walks to S and checks the guides .... Sellers... Shakespeare!
One checks the guides ..... Tragedy of Hamlet see Hamlet
One checks the guides ..... Hamlet, etc.
Within a few moments, the antique technology of the card catalog
can direct the interested reader to the file of cards displaying
all entries for Shakespeare's Hamlet in one place (assuming
the library followed certain cataloging rules, and that catalogers
and filers did not make mistakes).
This very simple process, assumed by most every librarian and
library user, to be available in any catalog, actually does not
exist (or at least does not exist elegantly) in any system I have
seen. It assumes a heirarchical reference/index structure as suggested
by Cynthia.
Once again, the problem is not with the rules, but with library
systems.
--ralph p.
Cynthia Watters said
...>
> I appreciated the posting about linkage, and might use this opportunity to
> digress into my concern about linkages which was occasioned by my vendor's
> (DRA) problems.
>
> That is, the linkage of authority records with each other. I think we
> really need to establish hierarchies of authority records so that
> the authority record for Huis clos, for example, is linked to and "hung
> off" the authority record for Sartre. Same thing for subject authorities
> with subfields. Instead of independent authorities for the $a heading
> and that for the $a same heading with $x, y, or z attached.
>
> Our vendor says they can't link a heading with multiple authority records,
> so if a name-title heading is linked to the name-title authority record
> it can't also be linked to the name authority record. Likewise, of course,
> a change to the name in the name authority record does not automatically
> cause a change in the same name in name-title authority records.
>
> I think this is a fundamental problem for references display and functioning
> in OPACs, for ordering of hits on hit lists, and for maintenance.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas about how to convert so, for example, a
> name title authority record is a "sub-record" linked to a name authority
> record? Or any disagreements with the need?
>
> Thanks,
> Cynthia Watters
> Catalog Librarian
> Middlebury College
> watters@myriad.middlebury.edu
>
--
A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 papakhi@indiana.edu
co-owner: MLA-L@listserv.indiana.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 23:11:37 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: "Nesting" in authority control
Comments: To: ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9708151318.L7947-0100000@dewey.newcastle.edu.au>
Giles S Martin <ulgsm@dewey.newcastle.edu.au> wrote (re ABN):
>Furthermore, if you wanted to change "Education--Research" to
>"Educational research", you would have to change all of the hundreds of
>combinations starting with those words, one by one.
On Catss you don't. It is automatic. Some call this "nesting".
It is accomplished by the "casc"ade command. That, along with the
ability of Catss to compute labels (090$c1-2$d1-100 gets you 300
labels), is why we did not leave Catss for WLN. Is anyone aware of any
inhouse system which will do these two things? We've found none.
I agree whole hearted with those who have said we should improve
systems, including being able to adequately handle authorities, and
parse holdings statements, before making changes in AACR to make it
"better" for systems. It's time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.
Nac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:14:14 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: "Nesting" in authority control
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Mac,
time and again, you relate all those marvelous facts about CATSS.
One is beginning to wonder if not the only two problems with CATSS
are that it is on the left side of the border, and that its name
is not OCLC.
(just for the weekend)
B.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:34:37 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Beyond MARC
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/r-beyond.htm
Mick Ridley's paper is a welcome addition to the conference papers,
in that it offers views of a non-librarian, computer expert. We get
precious few such views, sometimes they could do us a lot of good.
Much of what he says is additional confirmation of what was already stated
or suggested in this list, like on uniform titles, language bias,
or his suggestion of a 3-tier structure for records (work, manifestation,
copy). For the latter, however, the "Functional Requirements..." study
and Vellucci's paper go a lot further, and Ridley seems to have missed
those.
Mick Ridley points out, as one would expect from a computer person, that
too many things are optional in the rules (resulting in inhomogeneous
data), and there's still a lack of standardisation with certain fields,
like publishers' names (producing in imprecise results of queries).
This would mean that traditional bibliographic standards (title page
transcription) may have to be re-evaluated over and again.
Ridley still adheres to the superficial and now outdated (or so I think)
attitude toward main entry as being a concept of the past. He obviously did
not follow this list (or AUTOCAT, for that matter).
He admits, in his introduction, that his views are probably prejudiced
from the programmer's side. It is one particular prejudice I want to
get at here: on page 3, he writes:
"... Indexes are just a device for making queries go faster, and are hidden
from just about everyone."
Wrong. Very wrong. Indexes, if well-designed, are an invaluable medium
for browsing and collocating, and should as such never be hidden from
anyone. Everyone should be encouraged to look into them.
This is clearly a computer person's prejudice. They work from the assumption
that everybody approaching a catalog has a clear concept of what they
are looking for, and know the correct spellings and everything. If this
is true for every other database application context, then library catalogs
are the odd counterexample.
The very concept of a "query" (as in "SQL queries") is the wrong paradigm
for ibrary catalogs, but computer people are indoctrinated with this.
To enable browsing (on shelves as well as in files) has always been an
important feature of library service.
Not every index is good for browsing. Sometimes indeed, the software has
just not been designed to be able to present an index for browsing. Then,
Ridley's statement is a handy excuse.
But sometimes, a software is explicitly designed to be based on browsing.
For example, look at an index like this, with title keywords and
subject headings interfiled (an * marks the subj headings)
108 double
2 double bass *
5 double bass -- orchestra studies *
1 double bass and harpsichord music *
1 double bass and harpsichord music, arranged *
4 double bass and piano music *
4 double bass and piano music, arranged *
1 double bass and piano music, arranged -- scores and part *
1 double bass and piano music, arranged -- scores and parts *
5 double bass music *
1 double bass music double basses 2, arranged -- scores *
6 double-bass
1 double-bass and harpsichord music, arranged *
1 double-bass and percussion music *
3 double-bass and piano music *
1 double-bass and piano music -- scores and parts *
5 double-bass and piano music, arranged *
1 double-bass and piano music, arrangedn *
7 double-bass music *
1 double-bass music double basses 2 -- scores *
1 double-bass music double basses 4 -- scores and parts *
or another section:
211 pianoforte
1 pianoforte--concertos
1 pianoforte-album
1 pianoforte-literature
1 pianoforte-playing
1 pianoforte-sonate
1 pianoforte-spiel
2 pianoforte-werke
1 pianoforte/clavicembalo
2 pianofortebegleitung
1 pianofortes
2 pianoforti
88 pianos
1 pianos 2 with orchestra *
7 pianos 2 with percussion *
1 pianos 2 with percussion -- scores *
1 pianos 2 with percussion -- scores and parts *
1 pianos 3 with orchestra *
1 pianos concerto *
1 pianos music *
1 pianotorte
1 pianotrio
4 pianto
1 piatero
7 piatigorsky
1 piatnitsy
8 piave
1 picassos
2 piccadilly
Everybody reading this list will be able to figure out what the advantages
of this kind of index are over the hit-and-miss approach of a query
language.
Rule revision, as was stated many times now, should now concern itself
more with indexing and collocation in OPACs.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:40:36 -0230
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Charley Pennell <cpennell@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA>
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
Comments: To: mac@slc.bc.ca
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mac-
As has been discussed many times before on these fibre pathways, WLN uses
the same model of authority linkages to bibliographic records *within the
utility*. Where the model breaks down is when this data is transported out
of the control of the utility, namely to the local site or to another site
using the bib record. If memory serves me, our beloved Canadian utility
would not output authority linkages per se to the local library, preferring
to replace the link with the actual text from the authority file at the
point in time the record was exported. This prevented many of us from
utilizing the linkages in our own system and shackled us needlessly to a
database halfway across the country.
Our present Sirsi Unicorn system uses proprietary subfields (much like
Bernhard's |3 model) to accomplish hard linkages to authority file records.
The text itself remains in the field and is flipped when the linked
authority record is replaced. Records reported out to USMARC files will not
have the proprietary subfield, since it is not defined in that standard.
Just as well, as the authority control number is an internal one (just like
Mac's ASNs) and not a standard control number like the authority 001.
On the other hand, what does this issue, and some of the other discussions
vis-a-vis the various MARC formats, have to do with revision of AACR?
_______________________________________________________________________
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Charley Pennell cpennell@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
Head, Acquisitions/Cataloguing Division voice: (709)737-7625
Queen Elizabeth II Library fax: (709)737-3118
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF Canada A1B 3Y1
World Wide Web: http://sicbuddy.library.mun.ca/~charl8P9/chuckhome.html
Cataloguer's Toolbox: http://www.mun.ca/library/cat/
_______________________________________________________________________
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
-----Original Message-----
From: J. McRee Elrod <mac@slc.bc.ca>
To: AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Date: Thursday, August 14, 1997 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
>>A problem with authority records, for both kinds of links, is this:
>>Changes made later in the central authority file don't automatically
>>get transferred into all local systems affected.
>
>As the bibliographic utility Catss works, the ASN (authority sequence
>number) is substituted for the text in the entries of the bibliographic
>record. Our records are in our own files on their machine. When LC
>changes the text of an authority, that change displays automatically
>when our records containing that ASN are viewed. We download our
>records the 15th of each month for our most active file, annually for
>our less active ones.
>
>It astounds me that this arrangement seems unique to Catss.
>
>Perhaps before we go too far attempting to improve AACR and MARC, we
>should work on creating systems which make better use of what we already
>have.
>
>Mac
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:36:38 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Cynthia Watters <WATTERS@MYRIAD.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
Ralph says the problem is not with the rules but with library systems.
I agree it is not at all with the rules, but my vendor asserts (and has
me convinced), the problem is with the MARC format which treats each
string with additional subfields as totally unrelated to the string
without subfields.
Cynthia Watters
Catalog Librarian
Middlebury College
watters@myriad.middlebury.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:43:23 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Relation of linkages and revision of AACR
Comments: To: cpennell@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
In-Reply-To: <199708151410.LAA13027@piva.ucs.mun.ca>
"Charley Pennell" <cpennell@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> wrote:
> As has been discussed many times before on these fibre pathways, WLN uses
>the same model of authority linkages to bibliographic records *within the
>utility*. Where the model breaks down is when this data is transported out
>of the control of the utility ...
We (and I assume others) order the authority records to which our own
records are linked. Our headings which match our authorities link up
and produce cross references in printed catalogues and on cards for our
card catalogue customers. (So far as I know we are the only ones
automatically printing - as opposed to typing - card catalogue cross
references.)
But our private file on Catss retains the numbers as opposed to text,
and when re down loaded, reflect the changes made in the authority at
LC.
> On the other hand, what does this issue, and some of the other discussions
>vis-a-vis the various MARC formats, have to do with revision of AACR?
Too much of the discussion has to do with revision of AACR for automated
bibliographic systems. It's not AACR which needs fixing so much as it
is the automated bibliographic systems. We cataloguers must return to
our traditional role of designing and constructing catalogues, and stop
focusing on the creation of ever more complex bibliographic records.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:10:36 EDT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Zhishan Xu <zxu@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:18:53 EDT."
<970814111853.9515@myriad.middlebury.edu>
I have watched with great interest regarding linkages of authority
record. For me, the linkages to a bibliographic record should go
beyond authority record.
If we regard a bibliographic record as an information entity
representation, and a starting point to navigate all the information
about the same information entity, then the linkages to a
bibliographic record should be more multi-dimentional, and highly
dynamic than what our current online systems have provided us.
I think it would be very important to study what should be linked to
bibliographic record, and its impact on cataloging rules,
bibliographic data encoding system such as MARC, and online systems.
This study may change our mindset on what shoulde be future cataloging
principles.
Thanks!
Amanda Xu
Serials Cataloger
MIT Libraries
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
Email: zxu@mit.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:29:11 -0700
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Michael Gorman <michael_gorman@CSUFRESNO.EDU>
Subject: Posting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It seems to me that many of the communications to this listserv are
interesting (sometimes not very) but have little to do with AACR2 or any
possible revision thereof. Displays, MARC, the niceties or grotesqueries
of individual online systems, whether AACR2 is based on the card catalogue
(I don't think it is), subject headings (other than those based on names
(personal, corporate, geographic) and titles), etc. etc. Subjects that do
have something to do with the matter on hand are links between records,
various questions revolving around serial publications, descriptive
cataloguing of electronic documents and resources, main entry (though a
lot of that discussion is shadow-boxing), etc. Perhaps it would be more
useful if the discussion confined itself to the latter topics.
Michael
--
________________________________________________________
Michael Gorman michael_gorman@csufresno.edu
Dean of Library Services telephone: (209) 278-2403
CSU-Fresno fax: (209) 278-6952
5200 N. Barton
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
*It is a luxury to learn; but the luxury of learning is
not to be compared with the luxury of teaching*
RDH
________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:25:51 -0700
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Michael Gorman <michael_gorman@CSUFRESNO.EDU>
Subject: Posting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Friends
I tried on Wednesday, for the third time, to send a disc with the paper
that Pat Oddy and I wrote for the Toronto conference to the NLC = BNC. I
just wanted you all to know that the paper was completed lo these many
weeks ago and it is some problem with North American mails, not our
forgetfulness or indolence, that has prevented its "publication" on the
Web.
Michael
--
________________________________________________________
Michael Gorman michael_gorman@csufresno.edu
Dean of Library Services telephone: (209) 278-2403
CSU-Fresno fax: (209) 278-6952
5200 N. Barton
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
*It is a luxury to learn; but the luxury of learning is
not to be compared with the luxury of teaching*
RDH
________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 23:39:50 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Ralph Papakhian <papakhi@INDIANA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University W&G Cook Music Library
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
In-Reply-To: <970815103638.8700@myriad.middlebury.edu> from "Cynthia Watters"
at Aug 15, 97 10:36:38 am
Content-Type: text
Greetings. I'm not quite sure what Cynthia means about "each string
with additional subfields as totally unrelated to the string without
subfields." But, here is a result of searching in NOTIS staff mode:
**********************
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INDEX -- 1 ENTRIES FOUND 1 - 1 DISPLAYED
MOZART WOLFGANG AMADEUS 1756 1791
.GIRL IN GARDENERS DISGUISE
*SEARCH UNDER
1 MOZART WOLFGANG AMADEUS 1756 1791 .FINTA GIARDINIERA
(AF 400 ccb)
**********************
If one actually conducts this search or redirects it, the result will
be all instances of
Mozart Wolfgang Amadeus 1756 1791 .finta giardiniera ...
including strings with additional subfields. Here is the result:
*********************
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INDEX -- 32 ENTRIES FOUND 1 - 12 DISPLAYED
MOZART WOLFGANG AMADEUS 1756 1791
.FINTA GIARDINIERA
1 *ESTABLISHED HEADING (AF 100 ccb)
2 .DRAMMA GIOCOSO LA FINTA GIARDINIERA EIN VERGLEICH DER VERTONUNGEN
VON PASQUALE ANFOS <1989> (BM 600)
3 .FINTA GIARDINIERA <1973> sound (BM 100)
4 .FINTA GIARDINIERA <1989> sound (BM 100)
5 .FINTA GIARDINIERA K 196 <1954> sound (BM 100)
6 .FINTA GIARDINIERA KV 196 DRAMMA GIOCOSO IN TRE ATTI <1981> sound
(SB 100)
7 .FINTA GIARDINIERA KV 196 DRAMMA GIOCOSO IN TRE ATTI <1981> sound
(SB 100)
8 .FINTA GIARDINIERA KV 196 DRAMMA GIOCOSO IN TRE ATTI DI GIUSEPPE
PETROSELLINI <1981> sound (BM 100)
9 .FINTA GIARDINIERA MOZARTS MUENCHENER AUFENTHALT 1774 75 BAYERISCHE
STAATSBIBLIOTHEK <1975> (BM 600)
10 .FINTA GIARDINIERA OPERA BUFFA IN 3 ACTEN KOCH VERZ NO 196 <1800>
music (BM 100)
11 .GIRL IN GARDENERS DISGUISE K 196 <1967> sound (FW 100)
.FINTA GIARDINIERA AH DAL PIANTO
12 *ESTABLISHED HEADING (AF 100 cbb)
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INDEX -- 32 ENTRIES FOUND 13 - 22 DISPLAYED
MOZART WOLFGANG AMADEUS 1756 1791
.FINTA GIARDINIERA AH DAL PIANTO
13 .OPERA ARIAS OPERNARIEN <1983> sound (BM 700)
.FINTA GIARDINIERA CON UN VEZZO ALLITALIANA GERMAN
14 .ARIEN LIEDER UND ROMANZEN AUS DEUTSCHEN OPERN <1973> sound (BM
700)
.FINTA GIARDINIERA CRUDELI FERMATE
15 *ESTABLISHED HEADING (AF 100 cbb)
16 .OPERA ARIAS OPERNARIEN <1983> sound (BM 700)
.FINTA GIARDINIERA ENGLISH
17 .FINTA GIARDINIERA K 196 DRAMMA GIOCOSO IN THREE ACTS <1991>
visual (BM 700)
18 .FINTA GIARDINIERA K 196 DRAMMA GIOCOSO IN THREE ACTS <1991>
visual (BM 700)
19 .FINTA GIARDINIERA K 196 DRAMMA GIOCOSO IN THREE ACTS <1991>
visual (BM 700)
.FINTA GIARDINIERA GERMAN
20 .FINTA GIARDINIERA K 196 OPERA BUFFA IN THREE ACTS <1950> sound
(SE 100)
21 .GARTNERIN AUS LIEBE LA FINTA GIARDINIERA OPERA BUFFA IN 3 ACTS KV
196 <1972> sound (BM 100)
22 .GIRL IN GARDENERS DISGUISE K 196 <1967> sound (BM 100)
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INDEX -- 32 ENTRIES FOUND 23 - 32 DISPLAYED
MOZART WOLFGANG AMADEUS 1756 1791
.FINTA GIARDINIERA GERMAN
23 .OPERA BUFFA <1977> sound (BM 700)
.FINTA GIARDINIERA GERMAN ITALIAN
24 .FINTA GIARDINIERA A COMIC OPERA IN THREE ACTS K 196 <1900> music
(BM 100)
.FINTA GIARDINIERA GERMAN SELECTIONS
25 .FINTA GIARDINIERA ABRIDGED <----> sound (BM 100)
.FINTA GIARDINIERA OUVERTURE
26 *ESTABLISHED HEADING (AF 100 cbb)
27 .BRUNO WALTER CONDUCTS MOZART <1960> sound (BM 700)
28 .FINTA GIARDINIERA OVERTURE <1940> music (BM 100)
29 .OVERTURES <1967> sound (BM 700)
30 .SYMPHONY NO 39 IN E FLAT MAJOR K 543 TITUS OVERTURE K 621 LA FINTA
GIARDINIERA OVERT <1970> sound (BM 700)
.FINTA GIARDINIERA SELECTIONS
31 .FINTA GIARDINIERA K 196 HIGHLIGHTS OPERA BUFFA IN 3 ACTS <1959>
sound (BM 100)
.FINTA GIARDINIERA VOCAL SCORE GERMAN
32 .GAERTNERIN AUS LIEBE OPER IN DREI AUFZUGEN IN VOLLSTANDIGEM
CLAVIERAUSZUG MIT DEUTSC <1829> music (BM 100)
******************************************
There are problems with this display (and NOTIS has plenty of other
problems indexing in both public and staff modes). But I believe
that the software, in this instance, is implementing the AACR and USMARC
correctly. So it may be that a particular system cannot index MARC
records correctly. It is not logical to therefore conclude that all
systems cannot index MARC records correctly because of the structure
of MARC. The reference above, should lead to an index point where
all instances of the correct title can be found (including additions, etc.
to the title). I haven't seen a WEB based catalog that can do that
(admitting that I have only looked at a few).
You know, if you can put a man on the moon ...
--ralph p.
Cynthia Watters said
>
> Ralph says the problem is not with the rules but with library systems.
> I agree it is not at all with the rules, but my vendor asserts (and has
> me convinced), the problem is with the MARC format which treats each
> string with additional subfields as totally unrelated to the string
> without subfields.
>
> Cynthia Watters
> Catalog Librarian
> Middlebury College
> watters@myriad.middlebury.edu
>
--
A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 papakhi@indiana.edu
co-owner: MLA-L@listserv.indiana.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 14:57:03 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Posting
Comments: To: michael_gorman@CSUFRESNO.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199708152229.PAA09045@zimmer.csufresno.edu>
>It seems to me that many of the communications to this listserv are
>interesting (sometimes not very) but have little to do with AACR2 or any
>possible revision thereof.
The greatest handicap AACR suffers, I feel, is its isolation (except in
practice) from MARC and OPAC systems. I would not like to see us make
changes in AACR2 (based as it is on the long evolution of bibliographic
description) because of problems which really belong to MARC and/or
automated catalogue systems, and which should be rectified *there*.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:16:36 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Linking. Part 1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Zhishan Xu <zxu@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> I have watched with great interest regarding linkages of authority
> record. For me, the linkages to a bibliographic record should go
> beyond authority record.
>
Wait for Part 2, to be posted later this week.
>
> I think it would be very important to study what should be linked to
> bibliographic record, and its impact on cataloging rules,
> bibliographic data encoding system such as MARC, and online systems.
> This study may change our mindset on what shoulde be future cataloging
> principles.
>
There are several studies into this matter already (Tillett, Smiraglia,
Leazer, Vellucci...) and Part 2 will be based on these.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 13:16:27 +0100
Reply-To: mh@bodley.ox.ac.uk
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Mike Heaney <mh@BODLEY.OX.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Michael Gorman's posting
In-Reply-To: <199708152229.PAA09045@zimmer.csufresno.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:29:11 -0700 Michael Gorman
<michael_gorman@CSUFRESNO.EDU> wrote:
> It seems to me that many of the communications to this istserv are
> interesting (sometimes not very) but have little to do with AACR2 or any
> possible revision thereof. Displays, MARC, the niceties or grotesqueries
> of individual online systems, whether AACR2 is based on the card catalogue
> (I don't think it is), subject headings (other than those based on names
> (personal, corporate, geographic) and titles), etc. etc.
I fully agree that if AACR were an independent, self-contained
construct then we could all be happy with (most of) it. But
surely we should have some regard to the uses to which it is
put? AACR is used primarily in library catalogues, where it
co-exists with classification schemes, subject headings, coded
information (in MARC), keyword indexes (in computer systems
generally), call numbers &c.; and all these elements have a role
to play in bringing together the users and the items they want.
The library system in use until recently at the University of
Oxford actually incorporated (and had done for a decade or more)
many of the things we're now talking about --
entity-relationship structure, record-to-record links &c -- and
used on its own would have been a wonderful system.
Unfortunately it was very bad at communicating with the outside
world -- imported and exported records had to lose most of the
advanced elements. AACR2 may be OK in itself but -- like our old
system -- can fail to address the issues in the real world.
I agree with Mac (J. McRee Elrod) that most of the problems
derive from the MARC structure and the use made by automated
systems of that structure rather than in AACR itself. Do we,
therefore, just turn away and say "not our fault"? Do we try to
"take over" MARC? (And which MARC? -- of all the MARC formats I
know, USMARC is the most closely tied to the catalogue card era,
and is the least tractable) Or should AACR, as one of only
several elements in a MARC record, recognise its subsidiary
place in this structure and try to accommodate itself better to
it? What then of the library world (which still exists) which
doesn't use MARC (being either still a hard-copy catalogue or a
small standalone system)?
Though Michael avers that AACR2 is not based on the card
catalogue, it does inhabit a world in which the instruction
"make a reference" is enough: so at 26.2A3 "Lewis, C. Day- . see
Day-Lewis, C." is intended to guide the user to the entries for
C. Day-Lewis, and then use intelligence to work out that
name-title entries uder Day-Lewis also fall within the scope of
the reference. Similarly, publisher phrases such as "The
Society" require the user to make inferences about their
meaning. In that sense, AACR2 does belong to a pre-computer age.
If systems designers (being guided or misguided by AACR2 as
encoded in MARC) have not made the inferences and
interpretations implicit in AACR2, then shouldn't we be making
them explicit instead? Or should we be redesigning AACR in the
knowledge that its primary implementation will be in computer
systems of one kind or another, with an awareness of how
computers can hold and process data?
Mike Heaney
Bodleian Library
michael.heaney@bodley.ox.ac.uk
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:51:42 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Michael Gorman's posting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Mike Heaney writes:
> ...
> If systems designers (being guided or misguided by AACR2 as
> encoded in MARC) have not made the inferences and
> interpretations implicit in AACR2, then shouldn't we be making
> them explicit instead? Or should we be redesigning AACR in the
> knowledge that its primary implementation will be in computer
> systems of one kind or another, with an awareness of how
> computers can hold and process data?
>
>
The issue of filing rules must be mentioned here again. Sorry if I'm
getting on everybody's nerves.
Human filers of catalog cards can make inferences a computer can
impossibly make when it has to arrange browsable indexes or result
sets. Therefore, the elements to be used for sorting by computer have
to be controlled more explicitly and tightly than headings for cards.
Make filing rules part of AACR and you automatically raise the awareness
of everybody involved, including systems designers.
And there are more such elements than there had ever been for cards,
for we want indexes of publishers' names, place names, but above all,
titles, and ALL titles in all fields and subfields. Which brings me
back to the initial article problem. If the legendary fairy were to
grant me my three wishes (for this conference, that is), this one
would be among them.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:23:53 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "David P. Miller" <dmiller@CURRY.EDU>
Subject: Main entry for performances
I read Martha Yee's very interesting paper, "What is a Work?", shortly after
reading the "Draft Document of the Task Force on the Cataloging of Works
Intended for Performance," produced by CC:DA. My comments on main entry for
recorded performances refer primarily to Yee's recent paper, but I will refer
to the Task Force document from time to time.
I'll begin by saying that I advocate title main entry for recorded
performances, in any medium (theater, music, dance, mixed-media, etc.) This
view stems in part from my background: formal study of theater (two academic
degrees), an essentially lifelong involvement with performance in different
media, continual experience as a reflective audience member, and ongoing
informal study. I am not arguing against the concept of main entry, nor do I
believe that proper respect for the work of playwrights, composers, etc.
depends on it. I am also not advocating any "death-of-the-author" philosophy.
I recognize that library users in most situations conventionally regard music
and theater performances as being works by composers and playwrights, and
there is no reason to disappoint them in this. There are several points that I
take as axioms:
1) that a performance is different in its very nature from a written or
printed document;
2) that audience members do not attend performances in order to read scripts
or scores;
3) that code revision should not reify culture-specific notions about the
nature of art forms;
4) that assigning main entry according to our standard hierarchies of value
results in patent absurdities in too many instances; and
5) that we cannot ask catalogers, even those with academic backgrounds in the
arts, to act as critics in order to determine main entry.
1) A performance is different in its nature from a script or score. I hope
that, on the experiential level at least, it will take little argument to
establish this. Performances are evanescent, scripts/scores are tangible (even
electronic documents are tangible in a way performances are not). The acts of
reading as compared with watching/listening involve the person in very
different kinds of experience, including different sensory emphases, very
different senses of social occasion, different opportunities for reflection,
etc. Another way of saying this is that "intended for performance" is not
"performed." (Main entry for works "intended for performance" should, of
course, be under author! Recorded performances are something else.)
Yee: "In AACR2R we have considered the following changes to be substantial
enough to cause the creation of a new (but related) work (signalled by a
change in main entry) ... adaptation of an art work from one medium to another
(e.g. an engraving of a painting) ... " (p.7). If two 2-dimensional media can
be recognized as sufficiently different to cause a change in main entry, how
can a physical document and a live performance be considered the same work?
The primary reason, apparently, is that the labors of composers and
playwrights are regarded as having all performed realizations already latent
within them from the moment of their creation. Other artists are only needed
to serve as intermediaries for these already-existing performances. (This is
not unrelated, perhaps, to the medieval view of sexual reproduction, in which
the male seed contained the complete person in miniature, with the womb needed
only as a convenient receptacle.) I'll mention some specific examples of the
absurd consequences of this view later on. For now, let's just say that it
ignores the evidence.
One further point can be made regarding our discomfort with live performances
as items in a library's collection. As Yee notes (p. 24), there are "three
'layers' of creative activity" involved in a recording of a performed script
or score: a) the original writing, b) a performance, and c) a recording. The
first and third are collectible, while the second is not. The fact that we
can't get our hands on the performance itself may lead us to assimilate it to
something we can touch, an "item in hand," a script or score. Instead, we
should look at a recording as a surrogate for the vanished event, and put our
attention on providing access to the event, as well as the surrogate will
allow. Regarding the use of film (or audiotape, etc.) as "a mere recording
medium": the lack of creative camerawork does not retroactively transform a
performance back into a score.
2) Audience members do not attend performances in order to read scripts or
scores, meaning that we do not attend expecting only to witness the work of
the composer/author. This is true notwithstanding the occasional audience
member who does indeed show up with a musical score. Of course, it's true that
most people will come to see a performance of _Macbeth_ with the idea that
it's a work by Shakespeare, and may very well believe that Peter Sellers's
stagings of opera are indeed works by the respective composers. However,
wouldn't you want your money back if all you were shown in a theater were
holographic projections of scripts and scores? Less facetiously, what audience
would there be for Wagnerian opera, if Wagner's original stagings were the
only ones used -- or for Brecht, if all productions only followed his
modelbooks? Audience members indeed come to witness the collaborative work of
all involved, even if they don't realize the full extent of what that means,
and even if they sometimes dislike the results.
I'm not dissing audience members here. I'm one myself very often, and I
frequently go because of the playwright or composer, knowing nothing about the
performers. Different user group perceptions of what a performed work
represents can easily be reconciled using title main entry, with added entries
for the composer/authors, works performed, performers themselves, and so on.
There is no need for mutually exclusive choices where access is concerned.
I'd go further and say that the persistence of different user group
perceptions indicates that a performance is at least two things at once: a
work in itself, as well as one possible realization of another, already
existing work. Taking Losey's film of _Don Giovanni_ as an example, we should
not need to decide which group of users is right: those who believe it's
Losey's work vs. Mozart's. Why should a cataloging code adjudicate this
disagreement? Instead, realizing that the film represents both, do not
privilege either, enter under title, and provide the added entries wanted by
the user groups.
3) Code revision should not reify culture-specific notions about the nature of
art forms. (I suppose somebody will mutter about "political correctness" at
this point.) We have the opportunity to take a broader global/historical view
of the varied relations between composing and performing, recording and
enacting, improvisation and memory, tradition and innovation, than the current
code allows.
On p. 21, Yee notes that "even within the music field, there is general
acknowledgement that the primacy of composition over performance is culture-
specific, and functions best when applied to western classical music. Users
are not as consistent in considering works of western popular or folk music,
or non-western music of all kinds to be primarily the works of composers."
This is more satisfying to me than the quote from a Task Force member which
suggests that music consists of "a very detailed set of instructions for a
performer," which defines out most of the music that has ever been made. (A
house does not consist of a blueprint, nor are all habitations built from
printed plans.)
The principle of the primacy of writing over performance also causes
difficulties for non-Western theater and dance forms, where it is often a
nonsequitur. Would an hours-long dance drama based on a brief section of the
_Mahabharata_ need to receive a uniform title for that section of the epic?
Well, probably not, if no equivalent of a script with "detailed instructions
for performance ... closely followed" could be located (per Task Force report,
see Yee p. 23). But are we then creating a situation in which "author main
entry" signals "works in the Western high-culture tradition of authorship?" Is
this the kind of function for which main entry is intended?
4) Assigning main entry according to our standard hierarchies of value results
in patent absurdities in too many instances. A few examples will have to do.
Yee mentions Losey's film of _Don Giovanni_, but consider also Bergman's film
of _The Magic Flute_. We cannot regard these films, "with frame composition,
camera angles, cutting, etc." -- the "etc." including visual imagery, casting,
placement of text -- as being inherent in the musical scores or even the
composers' imaginations, without slipping into a muzzy sort of mysticism. The
glories of these works exist to a great degree in that they have latent within
them, not the performances themselves, but the power to inspire the creation
of so many realizations, new works, "derivative" if you like (but not in a
pejorative sense). Generations come back to these works over and over, and in
collaboration they create new works, the value of the new works varying with
the abilities of the collaborators. This, it seems to me, is an appropriate
tribute to genius, that it can serve inspiration in this fashion. By contrast,
not a single camera angle can be justified as being foreseen by any 18th-
century composer.
In AACR2R, "changes not [considered] to be substantial enough to cause the
creation of a new work" include "providing a choreography for an existing
musical work, such as a ballet (p. 7-8)." This gives one pause. How can a
piece of music be considered a ballet? Is ballet not a dance form, and is
music composed for it not generally called "ballet music", meaning written to
accompany the dance? How are specific movements, overall patterning,
alternation of solo and ensemble passages inherently contained in the music as
such? How can anything like "detailed instructions" for movement be contained
in a musical score proper? Rhythm alone is a weak indication of specific
choreography, and new choreographies, such as a new _Sacre du Printemps_ are
not bound by current practice to use composed rhythms at all.
In general, the concept of musical composition taking precedence over
choreography is untenable. Most Western choreography involves either
commissioned music, or existing music not originally composed for dance. In
the first instance, the dance is in development while the music is being
composed, independently or in an active collaboration. (Merce Cunningham's
company does not hear the music until the first performance.) If we must
invoke hierarchies of precedence, we'd have to say that the music is the
"servant" of the dance in most instances. But the question itself is
obfuscating. Martha Graham's _Appalachian Spring_ was not composed by Aaron
Copland, nor was Copland's _Appalachian Spring_ notated by Graham.
In the case of new choreography to existing music, it makes no sense to regard
the dance as the work of the composer. Balanchine choreographed his _Serenade_
using a work of Tchaikovsky's composed decades earlier. Must this dance
receive a main entry for Tchaikovsky? We cannot pretend that this represents
an informed understanding.
5) We cannot ask catalogers, even those with academic backgrounds in the arts,
to act as critics in order to determine main entry. As the AACRCONF
discussions progress, there are repeated calls to take into account the
impacts of code revision on existing staff expertise and workflow. I'm
generally leery of these cautions (wanting to distinguish the cart from the
horse), but here such a warning is appropriate. If catalogers are required to
determine main entry based on a) whether a printed document contains
sufficiently detailed instructions for performance, and b) whether those
instructions were faithfully carried out, there are two probable consequences.
The first is that, if catalogers are actually true to these guidelines, they
will need to become conversant with a whole host of specific practices of both
authorship and performance, and make informed judgements on a case-by-case
basis. This is in fact the business of criticism, not that of bibliographic
description. The second probable consequence is that catalogers, having
neither the time nor the inclination to do this, will simply apply main entry
under author in most cases, assuming that there were in fact detailed
instructions faithfully carried out. The latter consequence effectively
ignores the guidelines and negates the discussion.
Let's take two examples from dramatic literature. Shakespeare's plays, as is
well known, do not include detailed instructions for performance, and
therefore immediately fail the first test. And yet, productions of the plays
are often hotly debated vis-a-vis their faithfulness to S's "intentions,"
which are objectively undiscoverable. The most diverse productions have been
mounted over the centuries, by artists who deeply believed that they were
being faithful to Shakespeare. What shall we do here? In the absence of
detailed instructions in the scripts, we might try to salvage main entry under
author by determining that, nevertheless, a given production carried out
instructions which -might- have existed, making the production Shakespeare's
work indeed. This will mean getting involved with textual criticism, social
history, etc., for each and every videotape!
Nearer our own time, we have the case of Gertrude Stein's plays. This isn't
the place for the argument that these are indeed works intended for
performance, but the case is not difficult to make. Few of these texts have
stage directions, descriptions of settings, conventional act/scene divisions,
or even character indications. There are no instructions whatever in most
cases, just the text to be spoken. Here we can refer to the statement by a
Task Force member, to the effect that some performances are "realizations of
'texts' that contain an inadequate set of instructions (and therefore a new
work MUST be created with each performance) ... ". This statement misses an
essential point, that many writers and composers have deliberately left out
types of information that we conventionally expect. The term "inadequate" is
inherently pejorative, and assumes that the writer/composer simply did a bad
job of it. This needs to be proven -in each case-, not just asserted. Is it
the descriptive cataloger's job to analyze a writer's failure?
In short, asking the cataloger to determine how much improvisation is enough
to create a new work, or what constitutes detailed instructions and exactness
in execution, is inappropriate. It can be a fascinating study for one's
leisure hours, or a full-time job for the scholar. On the job, it will result
in a lot of questionable judgement calls and hair-splitting, if followed
conscientiously.
It's time to bring this message to an end, and my thanks if you've followed it
to this point! There's more that can be said, and probably will be. There is
one sensible exception to main entry of performances under title: the case
where the composer/author(s) and the performer(s) are the same, meaning exact
congruence. I have a recording of Bartok playing his piano works, which I'd
enter under Bartok, not the title of the disc. He created the performances as
well as the scores.
I appreciate the opportunity that the JSC has provided for widespread input
into an important discussion, and look forward to further participation.
David Miller
Levin Library, Curry College
Milton, Mass.
dmiller@curry.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:09:26 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Main entry for performances
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
David Miller promulgates these axioms:
>
> 1) that a performance is different in its very nature from a written or
> printed document;
> 2) that audience members do not attend performances in order to read scripts
> or scores;
> 3) that code revision should not reify culture-specific notions about the
> nature of art forms;
> 4) that assigning main entry according to our standard hierarchies of value
> results in patent absurdities in too many instances; and
> 5) that we cannot ask catalogers, even those with academic backgrounds in the
> arts, to act as critics in order to determine main entry.
>
Much though there is to be said in favor of these statements, one should
certainly not regard main entry rules as anything in the way of art
criticism or reflecting a Western hierarchy of values. Catalogs are
not, IMHO, vehicles to give credit for achievements, in the arts or
elsewhere. Catalogs are finding tools for items and collocation tools
for manifestations of expressions of works. It was expressed several times
that OPACs mostly fall short of the latter, and that we therefore need
the "work authority record". What other way is there to define this
record but by using those elements that are the most stable and the most
universally known and easy to look up items of data? These happen to be
the name of the person who created the first manifestation of the abstract
work, and the title it has come to be known by? What else are we going to
use as identifiers for collocation? The title alone? It does not mean to give
a composer undue credit when listing performances under his name, but it is
a way to collocate performances which one might wish to compare but which,
when recorded under performer, would be widely scattered.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:36:42 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: 740 for single magazine issue
Comments: To: lgallagh@bna.com
In-Reply-To: <9707188719.AA871919165@smtpgate.bna.com>
> Mac-- Are you sure 730 has $v (volume)? It's not in the
> current ed. of OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards.
> I was looking for $v but had to use $n instead.
The Catss LHF has it. This is not the first difference between OCLC
and Catss standards my postings have uncovered. I suppose one would
have to appeal to USMARC as the final authority, which I don't have.
But it doesn't matter much what USMARC has does it? One is dependent
on what one's system will accept. I do have the OCLC manuals, but
rarely consult them. If they don't like a field or subfield in a Catss
record we are uploading into an OCLC account, the software lets us know.
We find they object to many things which we consider quite legitimate
(such as an 020 for a collection level record recently mentioned on this
list).
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:37:07 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "David P. Miller" <dmiller@CURRY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Main entry for performances
Comments: To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
The need for collocation between a script/score and derivative works,
including performances, is most important. I am concerned about the
concept of "work" as "the abstract work, and the title it has come to
be known by," though. If I read Vellucci's paper correctly, this is
how the IFLA document understands "works" -- as something which exists
prior to any incarnation. The problem here is that such an abstract "work"
is impossible to delimit. Again, this is the job of criticism, not of
cataloging. What is the abstract _King Lear_? Critics have been working
on that for centuries, and will continue to do so. That's why _King Lear_
is important. Look at it another way: works which are easily circumscribed
ideationally are works with no generative potential -- i.e. are likely
to spawn little in the way of bibliographic families (from Smiraglia).
If you can understand an abstract "work" without experiencing it in some
concrete manifestation, there's not that much there to begin with. Any
nursery rhyme has more generative potential than that.
I haven't yet got a solid handle on the "super works" concept, but it
seems to me that this is where a script/score/notation and its derivative
works may be collocated -- at the authorities level. On the bib. record
level, author/title added entries can be indeed tied to work records --
records that pertain to -what the writer actually created-.
David Miller
Levin Library, Curry College
Milton, MA
dmiller@curry.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:17:28 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Main entry for performances
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
David Miller writes:
> The need for collocation between a script/score and derivative works,
> including performances, is most important. I am concerned about the
> concept of "work" as "the abstract work, and the title it has come to
> be known by," though. If I read Vellucci's paper correctly, this is
> how the IFLA document understands "works" -- as something which exists
> prior to any incarnation. The problem here is that such an abstract "work"
> is impossible to delimit. Again, this is the job of criticism, not of
> cataloging.
Exactly. The job of cataloging can only be to determine the "title it has
come to be known by", nothing more and nothing less. This can and must
be based on bibliographic evidence alone, not on critical evaluation,
not on philosophical reasoning, not on literary analysis. The result is
not one that is supposed to do anybody "justice" in giving them credit,
and neither is it supposed to accurately reflect results of scholarly
research, the result is only supposed to facilitate locating and collocating
publications.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:28:49 EST
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "Neil R. Hughes" <nhughes@LIBRIS.LIBS.UGA.EDU>
Organization: University of Georgia Libraries
Subject: Re: Main entry for performances
I find no new arguments in David Miller's original posting re: "Main
entry for performances," though it is undoubtedly one of the most
cogent explications of the interesting assumption that anything
other than title main-entry somehow requires too much subjectivity
and arcane knowledge on the part of the cataloguer. My further
observations follow:
> There are several points that I take as axioms:
> 1) that a performance is different in its very nature from a written or
> printed document;
No argument here.
> 2) that audience members do not attend performances in order to read scripts
> or scores;
Nor here.
> 3) that code revision should not reify culture-specific notions about the
> nature of art forms;
And how would one avoid that? It is "reifying" culture-specific
notions (questionably-applied egalitarianism; one-size-fits-all =
optimal service; etc.) to advocate the elimination of the hierarchy
that most users demonstrably bring to their library searches for
Western classical music.
> 4) that assigning main entry according to our standard hierarchies of value
> results in patent absurdities in too many instances; and
"Too many instances" is too vague to support the argument; be
specific, please. I too can show this--applying the principle of
composer main-entry to Karnatic music, to name one instance--but I
believe the arguments below fail to demonstrate any absurdity in the
application of composer main entry to Losey's film of Mozart's Don
Giovanni or Bergman's of Mozart's Zauberflote. They merely support
a statement that it is arbitrary to do so, and perhaps that it is
also harsh from a librarian's standpoint to do so. But they do not
show that access is adversely affected by composer main-entry in such
cases, or that a better citation form or list-sorting in a catalogue
can be achieved by adopting title main-entry.
> 5) that we cannot ask catalogers, even those with academic backgrounds in the
> arts, to act as critics in order to determine main entry.
Criticism is not necessary; only knowledge of the code that tells
one what to do in such-and-such an instance. I believe that
expanding the current code to allow for more specific guidance for
non-Western, non-"art music" genres is all that is necessary. One is
still left with questions of the structure of the authority file and
the representation of "the work," though. While the claim that
Losey's film of Don Giovanni is a new work is something with which I
might even agree, I question the need for a name/uniform-title NAR to
represent it unless someone reissues it with animated segments, or a
dubbed soundtrack sung in English, etc. etc. Name/uniform-title
NARs and the need for them for given works are fundamental to the
question of what should constitute main entry, at least where music
is concerned. As a person who has lived & breathed "classical music"
since the age of five, I apprehend one salient fact clearly: Mozart's
work, Don Giovanni, is present, discrete and complete, in Losey's
film and constitutes the majority of the intellectual content of
Losey's film, whatever other riches may orbit there resulting in a
second, new work. (Having seen the lengthy trailer issued prior to
the release of that wonderful film and heard Losey himself speak
reverently of the Mozart work, I have little doubt that he'd agree
with me, though sadly he's no longer around to respond.)
> 1) A performance is different in its nature from a script or
> score. I hope that, on the experiential level at least, it will
> take little argument to establish this. Performances are
> evanescent, scripts/scores are tangible (even electronic documents
> are tangible in a way performances are not). The acts of reading as
> compared with watching/listening involve the person in very
> different kinds of experience, including different sensory
> emphases, very different senses of social occasion, different
> opportunities for reflection, etc. Another way of saying this is
> that "intended for performance" is not "performed." (Main entry for
> works "intended for performance" should, of course, be under
> author! Recorded performances are something else.)
I return again & again (_ad nauseam_, no doubt) to my point that
experts, dilettantes, aficionados, lovers and all cognoscenti of
Western classical music would simply state that the preceding
statement is baseless and that a performance of a work is _exactly_
the same thing as a work intended for performance; in fact, it is a
more complete and accurate representation of that work. So I say
let us build our catalogues to reflect arbitrary tradition, rather
than adopting an untested and iconoclastic view (which Mr. Miller
supports only by insistence on a personal approach to these works,
rather than extended observation of users' approach to the
catalogue--either card or online--in the music library, which is what
I claim as support for my position). Can we really assume that title
main-entry would be better in all cases merely because it is better
for some? That is the classic Procrustean bed.
>
> Yee: "In AACR2R we have considered the following changes to be substantial
> enough to cause the creation of a new (but related) work (signalled by a
> change in main entry) ... adaptation of an art work from one medium to another
> (e.g. an engraving of a painting) ... " (p.7). If two 2-dimensional media can
> be recognized as sufficiently different to cause a change in main entry, how
> can a physical document and a live performance be considered the same work?
> The primary reason, apparently, is that the labors of composers and
> playwrights are regarded as having all performed realizations already latent
> within them from the moment of their creation. Other artists are only needed
> to serve as intermediaries for these already-existing performances. (This is
> not unrelated, perhaps, to the medieval view of sexual reproduction, in which
> the male seed contained the complete person in miniature, with the womb needed
> only as a convenient receptacle.) I'll mention some specific examples of the
> absurd consequences of this view later on. For now, let's just say that it
> ignores the evidence.
I contend that it is not up to catalogue librarians to change users'
views, medieval or otherwise. Only to construct catalogues that
serve their needs.
> Regarding the use of film (or audiotape, etc.) as "a mere recording
> medium": the lack of creative camerawork does not retroactively transform a
> performance back into a score.
... nor does the presence of creative camera work make a given
performance any less the complete realization of the composer's work,
as I said re: Losey's film above--or make it more the "work" of
someone else, unless we are prepared to create authority records for
the work of each of the camera operators, the gaffer, the executive
producer, and the caterer, with 510s all linking them to all other
records related to the item in hand.
>
> 2) Audience members do not attend performances in order to read scripts or
> scores, meaning that we do not attend expecting only to witness the work of
> the composer/author.
No one has ever said that they did. This is why the code allows for
performer main entry in certain instances, but subordinates it to
cases where the recorded music is (for example) all by one composer.
This is arbitrary and convenient, and reflects no judgments, moral
or otherwise, on the importance of the performer's contribution,
which I believe almost everyone is prepared to acknowledge is
extremely important, if not equal, in either case.
> This is true notwithstanding the occasional audience
> member who does indeed show up with a musical score. Of course, it's true that
> most people will come to see a performance of _Macbeth_ with the idea that
> it's a work by Shakespeare, and may very well believe that Peter Sellers's
> stagings of opera are indeed works by the respective composers. However,
> wouldn't you want your money back if all you were shown in a theater were
> holographic projections of scripts and scores? Less facetiously, what audience
> would there be for Wagnerian opera, if Wagner's original stagings were the
> only ones used -- or for Brecht, if all productions only followed his
> modelbooks? Audience members indeed come to witness the collaborative work of
> all involved, even if they don't realize the full extent of what that means,
> and even if they sometimes dislike the results.
And what has that to do with how they approach searching for an
edition of the play in question when they go to the library? Do we
have _any_ evidence that they look for Brecht's plays on
videocassette differently than they do the same entities in print?
>
> I'm not dissing audience members here. I'm one myself very often, and I
> frequently go because of the playwright or composer, knowing nothing about the
> performers. Different user group perceptions of what a performed work
> represents can easily be reconciled using title main entry, with added entries
> for the composer/authors, works performed, performers themselves, and so on.
> There is no need for mutually exclusive choices where access is concerned.
Again I must insist that this statement is fundamentally inaccurate,
at least where Western classical music is concerned, and I wish I had
some extensive transaction logs from academic or conservatory music
libraries' online catalogues handy to prove my point. As is so often
the case, we are wrestling with a very important question for which
there is little but anecdotal evidence and supposition on either side
of the argument, but my observations & experience are not imaginary.
There is a demonstrable need for mutually exclusive choices, and the
more specific they are to the type of work in question, the
better-served the user is. The extant rules work well for Western
classical music, most of the time. Let's offer some choices for
other musics, and start reflecting the realities of our more diverse
curricula and expanding world views in the arts, but let's not do
that by offering a macaroni-&-cheese non-choice of title main-entry
for everything.
If we do abdicate responsibility for deciding what constitutes the
work and apply title main-entry to all such items, the only viable
solution to the resulting confusion for the users may be what Martha
Yee proposes on p. 25-26 of her paper, where she proposes that one
be allowed to choose among list displays matching one's personal
approach to the work:
1. Editions of [work]
2. Works containing [work]
3. Performances of [work]
4. Works about [work]
5. Other works related to [work]
Where she and I differ re: this proposal is where the entry for
Mozart's Don Giovanni as it pertains to the Losey film would be found
in choices 1-5. She claims it would necessarily be found under 5,
"Other works related to ... ," whereas I claim it could only properly
reside under 2, "Works containing ... ," because of my intractable
view that a performance of a musical work equates to the work and
that Mozart's opera is discrete and present within the Losey film.
This is an important distinction, and we would have to decide
arbitrarily that it is one or the other to make such choices viable
in our online catalogues. (Does one tag the added entry 700 1[blank]
for a related work, or 700 12, for an analytic entry?) But I stray
far afield from discussions of AACR again....
>
> I'd go further and say that the persistence of different user group
> perceptions indicates that a performance is at least two things at once: a
> work in itself, as well as one possible realization of another, already
> existing work. Taking Losey's film of _Don Giovanni_ as an example, we should
> not need to decide which group of users is right: those who believe it's
> Losey's work vs. Mozart's. Why should a cataloging code adjudicate this
> disagreement?
The code does not now adjudicate any such disagreement; it merely
reflects a cultural tradition in such a way that logical
relationships among records may be built up in a hierarchical mode,
rather than a flat, Mozart's-o.k., Losey's o.k.,
we're-all-equals-here amorphous loop of authority and bib. records.
If the code happens to reflect a disagreement too, I'd say let's work
on that--if it affects access. But again, is it necessary to
eliminate helpful choices?
> Instead, realizing that the film represents both, do not
> privilege either, enter under title, and provide the added entries wanted by
> the user groups.
This statement illustrates what I mentioned in my earlier posting
about the arguments re: definition of a work and the concept of main
entry for performances being reduced to a popularity contest. We
are not currently "privileging" anyone or anything by making an
arbitrary choice for main entry. I claim we are assisting more users
by retaining composer (or when appropriate, performer) main entry for
"performances of works intended for performance" than we would be by
eliminating these choices. We are retaining more manageable
authority and bibliographic files, and we are harming no one. We do
not deny legitimate changes to The Canon; we do not halt the progress
of a society that has long recognized Bergman, Losey, or the author
of every song text who ever drew breath as an artist in his/her own
right in so doing. We are merely bringing order to bibliographic
chaos from a logical basis that will have to change as our users'
conceptualizations of works change, but I do not think it is up to us
to effect those changes through the design of our catalogues.
>
> Yee mentions Losey's film of _Don Giovanni_, but consider also Bergman's film
> of _The Magic Flute_. We cannot regard these films, "with frame composition,
> camera angles, cutting, etc." -- the "etc." including visual imagery, casting,
> placement of text -- as being inherent in the musical scores or even the
> composers' imaginations, without slipping into a muzzy sort of mysticism. The
> glories of these works exist to a great degree in that they have latent within
> them, not the performances themselves, but the power to inspire the creation
> of so many realizations, new works, "derivative" if you like (but not in a
> pejorative sense). Generations come back to these works over and over, and in
> collaboration they create new works, the value of the new works varying with
> the abilities of the collaborators. This, it seems to me, is an appropriate
> tribute to genius, that it can serve inspiration in this fashion. By contrast,
> not a single camera angle can be justified as being foreseen by any 18th-
> century composer.
Nor could Mozart have imagined the _actual_ first performance of
either of these operas, nor any subsequent production or performance.
This may be support for the notion that composer main-entry is
politically incorrect, but not for the idea that it's bad access in a
catalogue, nor for the arbitrary definition of the work one has in
hand.
>
> In AACR2R, "changes not [considered] to be substantial enough to cause the
> creation of a new work" include "providing a choreography for an existing
> musical work, such as a ballet (p. 7-8)." This gives one pause. How can a
> piece of music be considered a ballet? Is ballet not a dance form, and is
> music composed for it not generally called "ballet music", meaning written to
> accompany the dance? How are specific movements, overall patterning,
> alternation of solo and ensemble passages inherently contained in the music as
> such? How can anything like "detailed instructions" for movement be contained
> in a musical score proper? Rhythm alone is a weak indication of specific
> choreography, and new choreographies, such as a new _Sacre du Printemps_ are
> not bound by current practice to use composed rhythms at all.
There are now uniform titles for choreographic works parallelling
those for musical works (which may or may not be known in
conjunction with a given choreographic work in a given instance).
While related-work links among these records have not, in my opinion,
been adequately explored, recognition that there are in all cases at
least two works here (and not one new one, representing a synthesis)
is an important step in the right direction. Dance music illustrates
vividly a sub-area (again, within the Western traditions) where one
may see--even in a music library!--two distinct approaches to works
by users, and I am in complete agreement with the present solution to
this, whether I personally think the music is more important than the
dance or not. It reflects our users choices.
> In short, asking the cataloger to determine how much improvisation is enough
> to create a new work, or what constitutes detailed instructions and exactness
> in execution, is inappropriate. It can be a fascinating study for one's
> leisure hours, or a full-time job for the scholar. On the job, it will result
> in a lot of questionable judgement calls and hair-splitting, if followed
> conscientiously.
A good description of the art of good descriptive cataloging over
the centuries, if I've ever heard one, but I think a _non-sequitur_
in the present argument.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Neil R. Hughes
Music Cataloger
University of Georgia Libraries
Internet: nhughes@libris.libs.uga.edu
Telephone: (706) 542-1554
Fax: (706) 542-4144
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:47:17 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Main entry for performances
Comments: To: EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE
In-Reply-To: <7CDB06839CD@buch.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de>
>Exactly. The job of cataloging can only be to determine the "title it has
>come to be known by", nothing more and nothing less. This can and must
>be based on bibliographic evidence alone, not on critical evaluation,
>not on philosophical reasoning, not on literary analysis. The result is
>not one that is supposed to do anybody "justice" in giving them credit,
>and neither is it supposed to accurately reflect results of scholarly
>research, the result is only supposed to facilitate locating and collocating
>publications.
This is the best argument for series title entry in 440 I have ever
seen, as opposed to duplicating the 100 in an 800, with the title
(which is what my patrons are seeking) in often poorly indexed 800$t.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:02:36 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Stephen Hearn <Stephen.S.Hearn-1@TC.UMN.EDU>
Subject: composer main entry
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I've found the discussion of David Miller's argument for entering
performances under title only fascinating, but parts of it and the responses
to it have been a bit too abstract. So I offer a few examples which are
helping me focus my attention on the choices involved and how they would
affect a hierarchically ordered catalog.
The advantage of a "main entry" is that it offers a specially identified
data element for use in constructing more complex index entries. Considered
by itself, its status as the "main" entry is pretty meaningless; it only
becomes meaningful when it is used to sort, or more importantly subsort a
list of headings. And bear in mind that we are not talking about the terms
someone would search; we're talking about the complex, sorted entries which
their simple search will allow them to browse, and which AACR makes possible.
Taking music-in-performance as an example, let's consider how someone would
like to find the entries under a performer's name, say Leonard Bernstein. If
one consistently assigns a composer name main entry to Bernstein's
recordings as a conductor, one can use that main entry to subsort the
entries under Bernstein by composer name, and then title; e.g.,
Bernstein... (a.e.)
Beethoven, Ludwig... (m.e.)
[Concertos, orchestra, piano]
Bernstein, Leonard... (m.e.)
Candide...
Copland, Aaron... (m.e.)
[Symphonies, no. 3]
Wagner, Richard... (m.e.)
Tristan und Isolde
This follows the filing order called for by Library of Congress Filing Rules
(1980, p. 86).
If the three composer names above, with or without their uniform titles,
become added entries and indistinguishable from other name entries on the
record, it's hard to imagine how they could be used for subsorting. Hence, a
rule calling for title main entries for all performances would result in
something simpler, but less explicit about what the titles (title proper,
not uniform titles this time) represent:
Bernstein... (a.e.)
5 piano concertos... (m.e.)
Candide... (m.e.)
Third symphony... (m.e.)
Tristan und Isolde... (m.e.)
The problem of sort order in real files/indexes is of course much more
complex than this, and usually not well handled in the case of uniform
titles. However, I think these examples illustrate one of the options that
would be lost in going to title main entry only for performances in AACR.
Stephen Hearn E-mail: s-hear@tc.umn.edu
Authority Control Coordinator Phone: 612-625-2328
University of Minnesota Fax: 612-625-3428
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:55:08 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Jennifer Kolmes <jkolmes@COMP.UARK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Main entry for performances
In-Reply-To: <539A5AA60A4@libris.libs.uga.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In response to David Miller's remarks about main entry for performance, it
seems to me that the best argument against applying such a practice to
classical music is practical rather than theoretic. Most classical works
do not have nice specifc titles such as _Don Giovanni_, but instead have
hopelessly unspecific titles such as "Symphony number 1 in G major." Such
a title is of course meaningless without knowledge of the composer. Aside
from following tradition established with books, this is why the tradition
of main entry by composer is so firmly established with Western classical
music. You'd need a lot better arguments than any presented by Miller to
convince me of the wisdom of changing this practice, at least as far as
classical music is concerned.
Jennifer Kolmes
Head of Cataloging
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:13:18 EST
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "Neil R. Hughes" <nhughes@LIBRIS.LIBS.UGA.EDU>
Organization: University of Georgia Libraries
Subject: Re: composer main entry
To Stephen Hearn's first and preferred list-sort I would add the
following important element, i.e. a further subsort by titles-proper
under each of the composers+uniform titles listed there. This is a
primary example of a portion of what Ralph Papakhian was pointing out
on the list last week, i.e. that our current catalogues are not based
on the current code and its intentions re: access points. I have
inserted some made-up (but quite possible!) examples below, under the
entries for Beethoven, Copland, and Wagner to show how the sort could
be made even more useful. (I've included only a portion of each
title-proper; inclusion of other-title information in most cases
would make the list truly useful, as others have pointed out. I
also took the liberty of correcting the order of the elements in the
Beethoven uniform title, which are based on the arbitrary
relationship of solo instrument-accompaniment rather than the
alphabet.)
A list such as I advocate would necessarily include all added entries
for composers+uniform titles as well, but let's say for now that in
this mock online catalogue, added entries are listed separately after
main entries and we just haven't chosen to show any here. Be warned
though--my imaginary titles-proper in all cases except the Wagner
example represent scores, recordings, videocassettes, and study kits!
> Bernstein... (a.e.)
> Beethoven, Ludwig... (m.e.)
> [Concertos, piano, orchestra]
5 concerti per pianoforte e orchestra
The complete piano concertos
Concerts de piano integrale
Five masterworks of the keyboard : ...
Die funf Klavierkonzerte
Piano concertos 1-5
> Bernstein, Leonard... (m.e.)
> Candide...
> Copland, Aaron... (m.e.)
> [Symphonies, no. 3]
Copland's third symphony in facsimile
Dritte Sinfonie
Symphonies no. 3 & no. 2 ("Short Symphony")
Symphony no. 3
> Wagner, Richard... (m.e.)
> Tristan und Isolde
Wagner, Richard... (m.e.)
[Tristan und Isolde. Vocal score. English & German]
The romance of Tristan and Isolde
Tristan and Isolde
Tristan und Isolde = Tristan and Isolde
... etc. etc. This is something that libraries with music
collections have largely given up with the advent of online
catalogues and the demise of cards, and there is nothing like it for
bringing together all manifestations of a work (as we now define
"work") held by a given library. I personally think it was too much
to give up, even in exchange for keyword access, which can be a real
time-waster if your collection is large enough! I realize that Mr.
Hearn's list was such that one presumably could have selected the
Beethoven uniform title and then gone to a list of all titles-proper
connected to it; I prefer to have it all up front, as I did here.
My scrolling tolerance is high (witness my e-mail messages). But in
either case, those who say we can't have list displays of more than
two lines per item because our users are too dim to take it all in
have managed to make their cries be heard more loudly than those who
value Cutter's objects or the Paris principles!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Neil R. Hughes
Music Cataloger
University of Georgia Libraries
Internet: nhughes@libris.libs.uga.edu
Telephone: (706) 542-1554
Fax: (706) 542-4144
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:14:46 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "David P. Miller" <dmiller@CURRY.EDU>
Subject: Re: composer main entry
Stephen Hearn has helped with a point that was puzzling me: why did
there seem to be such resistance to name/title added entries for
composers and playwrights (etc.), if main entry for recorded performances
was given to the title? Added entries should certainly serve to collocate
the original works, as realized in performances -- but the subsorting
issue is important and makes the discussion more complex.
I'm still working on Neil Hughes' posting from this morning, but at the
moment I'll throw out this: what technical reasons necessarily prevent
adequate subsorting via added entries? We could talk about present
limitations of MARC and specific automated systems -- but looking
further ahead, must subsorting be confined to the main entry?
I've urged title main entry for performances pretty vigorously, but
I don't assume that this is a good idea given the status quo. Part of
what we're doing here is to imagine what we want, without sacrificing
the good that we have. Intelligible subsorting is important: how can
we facilitate this without misrepresenting intellectual/creative
responsibility for performances?
Thanks, all --
David Miller
Levin Library, Curry College
dmiller@curry.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:56:29 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "David P. Miller" <dmiller@CURRY.EDU>
Subject: M.E. for performances: reply to Neil Hughes
Thanks to Neil Hughes for giving me a good tough bone to chew on! Before
replying to some of his points, I'll make a couple of preliminary comments.
The first is that my assertions have nothing to do with frustrating any
existing users' expectations where searching and display of headings are
concerned, nor with changing their minds about music. ("Descriptive Cataloger
Holds Music Library Patrons Hostage in Re-Education Session") I am concerned
with what main entry designates, apart from its importance for collocation.
Given the implications of the conference papers I've read so far, and the
discussions that have gone on here, we certainly have room to imagine how
adequate collocation of headings can be brought about without relying on a
chain of main entries.
The second prelim. is that my original posting may have been somewhat skewed
vis-a-vis Martha Yee's conference paper, in that I was also responding to the
recommendations of the Task Force on the Cataloging of Works Intended for
Performance. That draft document does receive mention in Martha's paper, but
naturally isn't her primary subject. So, though my posting was directed at the
present paper, my comments were colored by the draft document, and in
particular by the following recommendation (quoted by Yee, p. 23):
"Realizations of pre-existing texts which consist of instructions for
performance should be entered as follows:
If the instructions are detailed, and if they are closely followed in the
performance, the performance should be considered the same work as the pre-
existing text, and creation of the text should be considered the primary
function in the creation of the work, with performance being secondary.
If, however, the original instructions are not detailed and/or are not closely
followed in the performance, the performance should be considered a new work,
but one related to the pre-existing text; i.e. if improvisation and/or
adaptation and/or creative or intellectual work beyond mere performance occur,
the performance should be considered a new work. This new work would be
entered under title, unless there are only two authorship functions involved,
and a more specific rule assigns primacy to one of the functions."
My advocacy of title main entry is not based on this recommendation, by the
way. I still believe that conscientious application of this recommendation
will indeed require catalogers to serve as art critics in a sufficient number
of instances to bring most departments to a dead halt.
My specific comments:
"(NH) I find no new arguments in David Miller's original posting re: 'Main
entry for performances,' though it is undoubtedly one of the most
cogent explications of the interesting assumption that anything
other than title main-entry somehow requires too much subjectivity
and arcane knowledge on the part of the cataloguer."
This overstates my case. I have a disc titled _Rudolf Serkin plays Beethoven_.
If I need to assign personal-name main entry, I really only have two choices -
- neither of which involve arcane knowledge. The question is, does either of
them represent the work accurately? As Fattahi puts it (p. 13): "Main entry is
a uniform construct for the naming and identifying of works and also for the
useful collocation of arrangement/display of the different expressions and
manifestations of a work." It's not simply a matter of facilitating file
structure according to an amiable, established convention -- but of delimiting
where one work ends and another begins.
" (DM) > 5) that we cannot ask catalogers, even those with academic
backgrounds in the
> arts, to act as critics in order to determine main entry.
(NH) Criticism is not necessary; only knowledge of the code that tells
one what to do in such-and-such an instance. [ ... ] As a person who has
lived & breathed "classical music" since the age of five, I apprehend one
salient fact clearly: Mozart's work, Don Giovanni, is present, discrete and
complete, in Losey's film and constitutes the majority of the intellectual
content of Losey's film, whatever other riches may orbit there resulting in a
second, new work. (Having seen the lengthy trailer issued prior to
the release of that wonderful film and heard Losey himself speak
reverently of the Mozart work, I have little doubt that he'd agree
with me, though sadly he's no longer around to respond.)
[ ... ]
> (DM) Taking Losey's film of _Don Giovanni_ as an example, we should
> not need to decide which group of users is right: those who believe it's
> Losey's work vs. Mozart's. Why should a cataloging code adjudicate this
> disagreement?
(NH) The code does not now adjudicate any such disagreement; it merely
reflects a cultural tradition in such a way that logical
relationships among records may be built up in a hierarchical mode,
rather than a flat, Mozart's-o.k., Losey's o.k.,
we're-all-equals-here amorphous loop of authority and bib. records."
Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that Losey's film is indeed a
sufficient fulfillment of Mozart's composition, that it should be given
composer main entry. Let's imagine that other opera cognoscenti feel
differently, and deny the film's status as an adequate representation. Let's
also imagine, please, that some film connoisseurs take a converse view: that
Mozart's composition has only served as the vehicle for a consummate Losey
work. (None of these hypothetical people may actually be found, but analogous
situations will arise.) If we provide main entry under Mozart, we have indeed
declared whose work it is primarily. More, we have declared that the film does
in fact fulfill Mozart's work. And, though this wasn't the intent of Neil's
comment, he does display personal critical expertise and relevant specific
experience (viewing the trailer, hearing the filmmaker speak) to back this
judgement. Again, composer main entry is not simply a convenient element for
structuring a file. In arguably ambiguous cases, assignments of primary
intellectual/artistic responsibility do involve either the exercise of a
critical function, or the abdication of it under the guise of following a
convenient rule.
" (DM) > Another way of saying this is
> that "intended for performance" is not "performed." (Main entry for
> works "intended for performance" should, of course, be under
> author! Recorded performances are something else.)
(NH) I return again & again (_ad nauseam_, no doubt) to my point that
experts, dilettantes, aficionados, lovers and all cognoscenti of
Western classical music would simply state that the preceding
statement is baseless and that a performance of a work is _exactly_
the same thing as a work intended for performance; in fact, it is a
more complete and accurate representation of that work."
I am sure I understand what Neil means by this -- I'm not such a materialist
as all that. My life with Western classical music also goes back to preschool,
for what that's worth. Still, I will now exasperate everyone by asking: what,
then, is a "thing?" For the purpose of constructing a library catalog, I must
regard a physical artifact (the composer's manuscript, a CD-ROM compilation of
comparative editions) as a different thing from an event which took place
once, has now passed, but has left traces on a recording medium. If I'm going
to provide the kinds of enhanced links between works that many are calling
for, I need first to separate thing from thing. In an undifferentiated
universe, we need no links, but neither can we act or make decisions.
Polymorphous perversity is paradisiacal indeed!
" (DM) > Regarding the use of film (or audiotape, etc.) as 'a mere recording
> medium': the lack of creative camerawork does not retroactively transform a
> performance back into a score.
(NH) ... nor does the presence of creative camera work make a given
performance any less the complete realization of the composer's work,
as I said re: Losey's film above--or make it more the 'work' of
someone else, unless we are prepared to create authority records for
the work of each of the camera operators, the gaffer, the executive
producer, and the caterer, with 510s all linking them to all other
records related to the item in hand."
The first part of Neil's reply, again, assumes sufficient critical knowledge
to make an accurate judgement (assuming that we agree on what a "complete
realization" is.) The second part is an overstatement. We do not now create
added entries for the persons mentioned, nor would title main entry mandate
that.
" (DM) > Audience members indeed come to witness the collaborative work of
> all involved, even if they don't realize the full extent of what that means,
> and even if they sometimes dislike the results.
(NH) And what has that to do with how they approach searching for an
edition of the play in question when they go to the library? Do we
have _any_ evidence that they look for Brecht's plays on
videocassette differently than they do the same entities in print?"
No, I don't, but I mention this aspect of audience psychology in terms of what
the "work" is that people come to witness, and what that means for naming. Of
course, they should be able to find the plays via author-title entries.
"(NH) The extant rules work well for Western classical music, most of the
time. Let's offer some choices for other musics, and start reflecting the
realities of our more diverse curricula and expanding world views in the arts,
but let's not do that by offering a macaroni-&-cheese non-choice of title
main-entry for everything.
[ and earlier ... ]
Can we really assume that title
main-entry would be better in all cases merely because it is better
for some? That is the classic Procrustean bed."
For what, besides Western classical music, do the extant rules work? Not,
apparently, for the most of the rest of the world's music. The rules work
about as well for theater -- that is, for work in the Western mainstream and
little else. Composer main entry makes no sense for dance, and title main
entry is already the norm for film. And then there's the entire, sprawling
area of intermedia and multimedia ... It begins to seem as though
playwright/composer main entry may be Procrustes' mattress of choice. Dare I
suggest that Western classical music and mainstream theater are the
exceptional situations?
"(NH) If we do abdicate responsibility for deciding what constitutes the
work and apply title main-entry to all such items, the only viable
solution to the resulting confusion for the users may be what Martha
Yee proposes on p. 25-26 of her paper, where she proposes that one
be allowed to choose among list displays matching one's personal
approach to the work:
1. Editions of [work]
2. Works containing [work]
3. Performances of [work]
4. Works about [work]
5. Other works related to [work]"
I won't quibble with the phrase "abdicate responsibility" here, but want to
say that I think Yee's proposed structure of entries is excellent, and not
simply as a way out of Bedlam! Much current thinking is converging toward this
kind of structured display, roughly analogous to the collapsed display of
subject heading subdivisions according to type, by the way. To what degree
will coding at the field level accomplish this, as compared with links at the
"super record" level? I find this fascinating.
"(NH) There are now uniform titles for choreographic works parallelling
those for musical works (which may or may not be known in
conjunction with a given choreographic work in a given instance)."
Yes, and I wonder what these are supposed to designate. Will a uniform title
for _Giselle_ stand for all possible choreographies of _Giselle_ -- and if so,
what are they assumed to have in common, besides, presumably, the same piece
of music? Again, what is being named here?
Over to you!
David Miller
Levin Library, Curry College
dmiller@curry.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 01:09:39 UT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Thomas Brenndorfer <ThomasB@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: composer main entry
-----Original Message-----
From: International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR On Behalf Of David P. Miller
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 1997 4:15 PM
To: AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: composer main entry
I'm still working on Neil Hughes' posting from this morning, but at the
moment I'll throw out this: what technical reasons necessarily prevent
adequate subsorting via added entries? We could talk about present
limitations of MARC and specific automated systems -- but looking
further ahead, must subsorting be confined to the main entry?
[]
Would not the term "main" entry imply that this is only one of many ways of
creating a heading for an item already? A first among equals, if you like,
with no restriction on subsorting, ultimately, in an automated environment. As
a case in point, are not alternate headings in a MARC authority record coded
exactly as if they were the main heading.
My take on this issue is that main entry headings must always be constructed
because we must always assume a single entry limitation at some point or
another. Book catalogs, cutters for shelf arrangement, brief summary displays,
citation forms -- all come to mind. In other words, main entry to me means
that if there was one, and absolutely only one way to create a heading for a
work, fulfilling the needs of unique identification and efficient collocation,
what would that form be? The right answer, surely cannot be, oh, let the
computer take care of it. The right answer, surely cannot be that this is too
much of an intellectual exercise, better suited for literary criticism.
I see uniform titles, main entry headings, and work records as all intricately
intertwined. Perhaps these specific functions are >>too<< intertwined, with
overlapping fields, partly because of the slight card-catalog bias in AACR,
but mostly because of the overt card printing focus of MARC. The unique work
heading consisting of the 100 name plus 240 uniform title or 245 title proper
are poorly integrated and often do not meet the needs of computerized systems,
which understand only hard logic and clear separations of all data into
discrete, simple units (at least without resorting to complicated spaghetti
code). This is especially so when these name and title elements are joined in
name-title form when a reference to a work is required, creating a mold of
inconsistency that replicates problems throughout our automated environments.
The discussion on musical works also extends to series, where I would strongly
disagree with J. McRee Elrod. The only good main entry heading is a consistent
clear one, independent of as many crutches and extra baggage as possible. If a
series heading had to stand alone, independent of all other data, what would
that form be? Creating inconsistency in the treatment of main entry, which
applies to works, independent of considerations of physical manifestations
(the prime directive of Part 2 of AACR) will certainly create as much labor as
one might think would be eliminated.
A name-title series heading generates an authority record. The heading on this
authority record is the same one that can be used as a related work or as a
subject heading, where the 100 author would certainly not be the author
responsible for the series. It is precisely for this reason that a mutilated
title-only series heading would not suffice, as collocation in a "lowest
common denominator" catalog would be obliterated, with the link severed from
the original series author to all related works. (Alternatively, we could
create subject added entries for every item in the series in name-title form,
but I think it is certainly in the public understanding that a series title is
a fundamentally different concept than just a slight variation on the title of
a part of the series. As an example, I recently created a related added entry
for Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, a work, certainly, in its own right,
despite its physical manifestations into separate parts. And it sure is nice
to have this kind of collocation under Asimov's name, which certainly would
not be the case in a traditional card catalog with main entry titles for all
series. Why have two or three extra degrees of separation when there is no
compelling discomfort in name-title series headings, bringing all relevant
works together?)
Again, we can assume complicated programmed arrangements of mixing and
matching heading elements to remedy choices for headings, but certainly one of
the hallmark achievements of AACR has been its ability, at the >>very least<<
to bridge a simple, single entry world with the complex multi-index,
multi-keyword world of automation. Whatever changes are made, this absolutely
must not be lost.
Tom Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
thomasb@msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:00:04 +0900
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Mervyn Islip <Lbymgi@LBY.PCMAIL.LEVELS.UNISA.EDU.AU>
Organization: University of South Australia
Subject: Re: composer main entry
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> The problem of sort order in real files/indexes is of course much more
> complex than this, and usually not well handled in the case of uniform
> titles. However, I think these examples illustrate one of the options that
> would be lost in going to title main entry only for performances in AACR.
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Hearn E-mail: s-hear@tc.umn.edu
> Authority Control Coordinator Phone: 612-625-2328
> University of Minnesota Fax: 612-625-3428
>
While I appreciate the special problems of music and other specialist
libraries, AACR2 was designed for "use in the construction of catalogues and
other lists in general libraries of all sizes. They are not specifically
intended for specialist and archival libraries..." AARC2R 0.1 (p. 1). In
revising the code I believe this should be kept in mind. Therefore, I would
like to advocate abolishing main entry, not as a concept, but in the
construction of the bibliographic record.
What I am suggesting is that the headings for the author(s) associated with
a work be listed together in the record, rather than separated into main and
added entries. In MARC this would probably mean authors, etc. would only
appear in 7xx tags (assuming 7xx and not 1xx was chosen as the tag for this
purpose.) However, I recognize the problem that this would create for
uniform titles, particularly for music and literature.
One way around this would be to provide a name-uniform title added entry
where required, although I realize this may not allow for the complex sort
order displays outlined in discussion so far. In MARC the 100/240 for
uniform titles would be replaced with a 7xx name-title added entry. This may
seem a radical idea, but I am sure I have heard it before somewhere, and I
think we should be considering all options in revision of the code.
Mervyn Islip
Senior Cataloguing Librarian
University of South Australia Email: mervyn.islip@unisa.edu.au
Library Phone: +61 8 8302 6722
Holbrooks Road Fax: +61 8 8302 6756
Underdale, S. Aust. 5032
Australia
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:13:21 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Abolishing main entry
Comments: To: Lbymgi@LBY.PCMAIL.LEVELS.UNISA.EDU.AU
In-Reply-To: <1997Aug20.102400.1069.746264@pcmail.levels.unisa.edu.au>
Mervyn Islip <Lbymgi@LBY.PCMAIL.LEVELS.UNISA.EDU.AU> wrote:
>What I am suggesting is that the headings for the author(s) associated with
>a work be listed together in the record, rather than separated into main and
>added entries. ...
>One way around this would be to provide a name-uniform title added entry
>where required ...
Because of the mixed nature of the responsibility, I can appreciate the
arguments for title main entry for performed works, with name-title
added entries for the works (music, choreography, play) serving as the
basis of performance. But I can see no reason to abandon main entry
under the author of a text, composer of a score, painter of a picture,
etc. Such a move would create more problems than it would solve, and
create redundant information in added entries if the added entry
suggestion above were adopted (the same title appearing in 245 or 130 -
I assume 240s would vanish - and 700$t).
I already object to the $a redundancy of 800$a$t. This $t redundancy
would be even worse.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:18:03 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: subsorting (composer main entry)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
David Miller asks:
>
> I'm still working on Neil Hughes' posting from this morning, but at the
> moment I'll throw out this: what technical reasons necessarily prevent
> adequate subsorting via added entries? We could talk about present
> limitations of MARC and specific automated systems -- but looking
> further ahead, must subsorting be confined to the main entry?
>
Different queries would be coupled with different expectations regarding
subsorting. And then, which of potentially many added entries would
be selected for subsorting? With USMARC data as they are now, it is
an intractable problem. Consider that the added entries for conductors
and performers have no relation (none that any softare could detect!)
to the added entries for the works (in the 700 $a$t fields) they
conduct or perform. Forget the contents note, its hopeless for
this purpose.
What we need first before we can talk about subsorting is full analytical
records for all works represented in one container, as opposed to
what we have now: only one record for the container with a long
contents note and a long list of unrelated added entry fields.
But even then, analytical entries can also have several added entries,
so which one do you want for subsorting? At least some other (new)
kind of indicator would be required here, and where is that to come from?
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:50:49 -0500
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Robert Kusmer <Robert.Kusmer.1@ND.EDU>
Subject: main entry vis-a-vis shelf order
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Having just begun reading these postings, I may well have missed this point
having been made already. My apologies if that is the case.
Has the impact of the elimination of main entry on its function as a shelf
order device been considered?
If all records were to have title main entry, what would be the device for
creating correct alphabetic shelf order?
Robert L. Kusmer
Cataloger, German/Humanities
G253 Theodore M. Hesburgh Library
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-5629
Phone: (219) 631-8649
Fax: (219) 631-6772
E-mail: kusmer.1@nd.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:06:33 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "David P. Miller" <dmiller@CURRY.EDU>
Subject: Re: main entry vis-a-vis shelf order
I don't see a great impact, at least with regard to what I've been
advocating. I'm not advocating the elimination of main entry, and many
works already do receive title main entry. So even if another class
of works (recorded performances) was given title main entry broadly,
principles for shelflisting should remain as they are.
David Miller
Levin Library, Curry College
dmiller@curry.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:08:13 UT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Thomas Brenndorfer <ThomasB@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Abolishing main entry
-----Original Message-----
From: International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 1997 9:13 PM
To: AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Abolishing main entry
I already object to the $a redundancy of 800$a$t. This $t redundancy
would be even worse.
[]
Oh, I do so enjoy this topic, as it helps to focus one's mind on the skeletal
structure that is the basis of AACR.
Currently, the 100 field may look like the king on the throne, presiding over
the record, with all its attached access points. But the 100 field is
understood to be attached to one work and to one work only. This work is
either represented by the whole bibliographic item, or the first, main part of
the item, with other work headings created with 700 analytical added entries.
The 100 author is already attached to one and only one work heading. Never has
been attached to more. Never should be. Never will be. The last thing we
should be doing is overburdening the already confusing and complex
interconnections between the fields in a cataloging record. If we do not treat
series as a separate work, just like a separate analytical entry (even if it
is the same as the 100 author), precisely how are we making things simpler and
easier for cataloguers and system designers? I would think we would want to
eliminate multiple, context-sensitive meanings for fields. I certainly have no
difficulty tracing a lot of the problems with the AACR translation to MARC and
to automated systems back to this one point. In other words, this is not a
side issue -- this topic is at the crux of the whole spectrum of confusion and
difficulty in updating the code.
Recently I catalogued a two-author fiction series by Lucas and Claremont.
Based on predominance, Lucas gets responsibility for the entire series, but
Claremont has chief responsibility for book 2. I am dealing with two different
works, with two tracks of responsibility. In the catalog, I can find the
series under both authors, or under a title reference, or from a Related Works
screen from each part, so all access points are covered. The role of the
name-title main entry heading assists me in collocation, as I can file all
books under Lucas (or each book under each main entry author, if I so choose).
I will never file this series under series title, as this is not the best way
of ensuring high circulation. Therefore, the meaning of main entry has to sway
towards predominant access point, which is author access. And this applies
equally and separately to series as it does to the individual parts.
Most automated systems that I have worked with do not have the sophistication
to conjoin disparate data elements to create authority forms, such as series
headings. Therefore, eliminating redundancy in name headings will be
accompanied by a decrease in functionality and clarity. If anything, the
highest degree of accuracy and sophistication on this point can be found in
the traditional card catalog design following the rules of main entry for
works in Part 2 of AACR. A separate decision is made in creating the main
entry for each work. This separation must be maintained, (if not enhanced) in
the code to assist system designers.
Tom Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
thomasb@msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:29:10 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: main entry vis-a-vis shelf order
Comments: To: dmiller@CURRY.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199708201306.JAA06883@hermes.curry.edu>
"David P. Miller" <dmiller@CURRY.EDU> wrote:
>I don't see a great impact, at least with regard to what I've been
>advocating. I'm not advocating the elimination of main entry, and many
>works already do receive title main entry. So even if another class
>of works (recorded performances) was given title main entry broadly,
>principles for shelflisting should remain as they are.
I see no problem with performances arranged within class number by main
entry Cutters. It would even be fine with me to move to title main
entry and title Cutters for works with two or more authors (as opposed
to four or more as at present). For works by *one* person, however, I
very strongly support main entry under that author, composer, or artist;
Cuttering by that main entry for shelf arrangement; and the use of that
main entry with title for added entries used with related works.
My customers want the works of one author on one subject together,
the works of one literary author together; and added entries for works
being supplemented, criticized or performed under the author-title of
the work being supplemented, criticized or performed. Abandoning main
entry for single authors would make all of the above much more difficult
to do.
David is correct is saying that he did not advocate title main entry for
all texts, only performances. But there has been support on this list
for abandoning main entry under persons.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:50:22 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "David P. Miller" <dmiller@CURRY.EDU>
Subject: Re: composer main entry
Tom Brenndorfer stated:
"My take on this issue is that main entry headings must always be constructed
because we must always assume a single entry limitation at some point or
another. Book catalogs, cutters for shelf arrangement, brief summary displays,
citation forms -- all come to mind. In other words, main entry to me means
that if there was one, and absolutely only one way to create a heading for a
work, fulfilling the needs of unique identification and efficient collocation,
what would that form be?"
This is well put, and on these terms it seems as though main entry of
virtually anything under title (except anonymous classics?) doesn't come
off very well. But I do wonder about this premise as it relates to the
issues that are being raised in the conference papers, which in turn have
been the subjects of discussion (never mind complaint) for a number of years.
I accept that systems will, at some point, display a single entry limitation
(a unique title requires only one cutter number, a single-line display
tautologically consists of a single line). But a "lowest-common denominator
catalog" is, probably, inherently unsuited to explicate multiple bibliographic
relationships, for example.
I'm hardly speaking about this from great institutional wealth! We got
our first automated system only two years, and while we're pleased with it,
it's pretty straightforward. We're not a beta test site for anything, and
you won't see us headlining any LITA preconferences :-). But I think it's
important to discuss these issues in terms of what will address the needs.
It may be difficult for simpler systems to handle the proposed solutions.
Thanks for joining in!
David Miller
Levin Library, Curry College
Milton, mA
(MA)
dmiller@curry.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 00:35:19 UT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Thomas Brenndorfer <ThomasB@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: composer main entry
-----Original Message-----
From: International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR On Behalf Of David P. Miller
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 3:50 PM
To: AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: composer main entry
I accept that systems will, at some point, display a single entry limitation
(a unique title requires only one cutter number, a single-line display
tautologically consists of a single line). But a "lowest-common denominator
catalog" is, probably, inherently unsuited to explicate multiple bibliographic
relationships, for example.
[]
Ah, yes, but how would "explication" occur if not through some sort of links
between chief identifiers for each work? One alternative would be leading the
user from entire descriptive record to entire descriptive record. Or perhaps
from cryptic code to cryptic code.
As much as the descriptive record forms a nice, neat unit, I don't think this
is the unit that most people have in mind when having bibliographic
relationships explicated. If we do not promote the idea of main entry on our
terms (as a uniform work heading), some system developer, with much less
refinement, will undoubtably have to invent the concept (as, in fact, they
have -- the "work" identifier in the summary display in our system consists of
100 + 245$a$b$h + 260$c).
Tom Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
thomasb@msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:34:07 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Abolishing main entry
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thomas Brenndorfer, in a longer message, made this remark:
>
> ... The role of the
> name-title main entry heading assists me in collocation, as I can file all
> books under Lucas (or each book under each main entry author, if I so choose).
> I will never file this series under series title, as this is not the best way
> of ensuring high circulation.
Decisions for main entry points should ideally not be influenced by
considerations outside the scope of cataloging. Where you FILE a book
on your shelves should ideally be a totally different matter from what
you assign as main entry. In practice, as we see and as you will all
know, these things are intertwined, partly because of automatic
cuttering (spine labeling) and whether or not you want to file parts
of a series together or separately - for reasons that have nothing to
do with cataloging. How many duplicate records in the utility databases
result from this?
> Therefore, the meaning of main entry has to sway
> towards predominant access point, which is author access.
No swaying is necessary, rule 21.1 says it all.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:56:24 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Linking. Part 2.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
To link or not to link, and how
-------------------------------
Part 2: Links between bibliographic records, including work records
Like in Part 1, many statements here will be nothing new for readers with
a background in library database programming. They can skip to the section
on "Links between bibliographic records".
It was found necessary to split Part 2 into 2 parts. The first (this one)
is now called Part 2, the second will be Part 3 and will deal almost
exclusively with the Part->Whole relationship.
In Part 1, subfield $3 was used in examples to represent linkage IDNrs.
That's a UNIMARC convention, whereas in USMARC, $3 means "materials
specified" wherever it occurs. In 76X and 78X, USMARC uses $w for link IDs.
Therefore, that is what we use in examples below.
"Link" will henceforth always mean "data link" in the sense of Part 1,
i.e. controlled link, not "informal link" like in notes.
The purpose of bibliographic links must be to enable users to find work
records starting from title records, and then to get collocated views of
title records linked to work records or to each other in various ways.
In what ways? That will be the task of the rules to define, see below.
But haven't we had links all the time?
And don't the new WebPACs come with all sorts of hyperlinking?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Access points in 7XX and 6XX nowadays find themselves elevated to
the status of links, or even "hypertext links" in Web OPACs. What these
usually do is to make the contents of those fields "clickable" and thus
easy to follow for the end-user. More often than not, however, the
other end of the link is missing. The 700 and 600 fields were made to
refer back (as "added entries") to the record they are contained in,
and to collocate records under established standard headings, they were
not made to refer to other entries or works. They are not links in the
true sense. (The "established standard headings" do come very close to
a function of work records though.)
To clarify matters further:
In HTML documents, everything that appears in blue and underlined is called
a "link". Originally these always contained the URL of another document.
In WebPACs, that is no longer so: what they often do is to start a CGI
program which in turn generates a new (dynamic) HTML document, just for
this single occasion.
The outward appearance of HTML links is always the same in that you see
something (not always blue, granted) that invites you to click on it, you
don't see what exactly will happen when you do.
We are not talking about blue links here but only true links, deliberately
implanted into records for the purpose of linking, and linking between
bib records only, not linking to primary documents via URL or such.
What WebPACs do with these links and what other kinds and types of links
they provide is, at present, outside the scope of AACR anyway. (2)
As an off-topic remark:
To turn added entry fields into blue hyperlinks can prove a mixed blessing.
Users may find the catalog to promise too much. That is always the danger
with providing nice and easy avenues of access to catalog data: users
tend to believe without a moment's reflection that the computer will
now find "everything" for them. After the inevitable disappointments,
they might conclude there to be one letter too many in the word "hyperlink".
The old principles of "garbage in - garbage out" and "something cannot
come from nothing" are as valid as ever. Hypertechnology can certainly
elevate the appearance, but not the substance of a catalog.
Before we can go on to the real issues of bibliographic record linking,
one more question needs to be aired:
Do links have to be bidirectional?
----------------------------------
It sounds just sensible, doesn't it?
But what does it really mean? "Reciprocal"? Or something like "traversable
both ways"? It may come as a surprise, but in every properly indexed
database, ANY link can be traversed both ways, even if implemented only
at one of two ends. So there is no need to have a link reciprocally
anchored in fields or subfields at both ends.
As an example, lets look at
(Deviating from true MARC, we have depicted an "identifier link" ($wa98765)
in this example, but a "textual link" using "$aTchaikovsky..." could serve
quite as well - provided there is appropriate indexing.)
Bib record Authority record
001 b01234 |--------------> 001 a98765
100 10 $wa98765 ---| 100 10 $aTchaikovsky, Peter Ilich...
245 00 $aPiano concerto no. 1 400 10 $aCajkovskij, Petr Ilic
... ...
and suppose we have indexed both the 100 $w of the bib record and the 001
of the authority record. Thus, the index would contain entries like
a98765 [generated from and pointing to the authority record]
a98765 -> b01234 [generated from and referring to the bib record]
Using this index, software can traverse the link both ways and in this sense
it is bidirectional. It is not reciprocal because the bib record's
IDnr "b01234" is not contained in the authority record.
To do the latter would be highly impractical: you end up with hundreds of
bib record IDnrs in the authority record and have to keep them up-to-date -
nobody does that with authority records, but it is just as unnecessary
for bibliographical links.
IOW, software can easily make every link bidirectional. Presently,
not all systems may be prepared for this, however, which is why some people
favor or advocate reciprocal links, or mean "reciprocal" when they say
"bidirectional". IMHO, software that does not support this kind of linking
functionality must be called unfit for the future. Luckily, it is not a
complicated or costly feature.
Well then, at WHICH end DO we anchor a link if not at both? That's easy.
Practically speaking, the situation is always this one:
You create a new bibliographic record A and realize you have to link it to
another record B (of whatever type). Then the link belongs in A.
(When cataloging, you simply don't start out and create a new authority
record, or other related record first, but you start with the item in hand.
And only THEN discover that another record has to be found or created to
link it to! But the one in hand, the one you start with, is the one in
which to anchor the link.)
Theoretically speaking, the link must always point "upward". That is, from
the subordinate to the higher level, from the specific to the general,
from part to whole, from small to big, from later to earlier, from
manifestation to work, from concrete to abstract.
This actually implies the practical rule given above: what you have
in hand in the typical cataloging situation is invariably the concrete,
not the abstract, it is a part, not the whole, and so on.
Links between bibliographic records
-----------------------------------
My intention here is not to pile more theoretical chaff on the impressive
mound of theory we already have, for it contains as much grain as we will
need, if not more.
Rather, I attempt to present a minimal implementation of record linking
into USMARC without so much as a single new field or subfield, yet capable
of handling a wide range of logical links. Hopefully, this will make the
suggestions of theorists clearer, and hopefully too, it will show that
those suggestions are not extremely difficult to realize. No need, in fact,
to wait for a "totally revamped" MARC.
This implementation follows S.L. Vellucci's reasoning in her "Bibliographic
relationships" paper (p.28/29) and M. Yee's outline suggestions in her
paper "What is a work" (p. 25/26).
A "conceptual schema" for a full-scale model can be found in a paper
by Gregory Leazer (1).
To make things really simple, let us use just one tag to accomodate all
links, namely the
787 Nonspecific relationship entry (Repeatable)
and two subfields :
$w Record control number (target to link current record to)
$g Relationship information (textual; optional)
All other subfields, strictly speaking, are redundant because they all
contain fields from the target record pointed to by the number in $w.
The other subfields may be used, on the other hand, in situations where
the software cannot handle these links or the target record is not present
in the database. They can be inserted into exchange records, of course,
which would then look as they do now, plus the $w. This way, local
software would not be affected if it is not prepared for linking.
The subfields are defined repeatable in USMARC, but that makes matters
unnecessarily complicated. It is better to have another 787 for every link
to be established.
Why 787?
787 may presently be used chiefly for serials, but it is the closest thing
that can be found to suit this purpose.
Instead of using 787, one might think of extending the 700, which currently
has no $w. The $6 for "linkage" has nothing to do with $w, for it is meant
for intra-record linking to an 880 field in an alternate script! It may
be better, however, to restrict the 700 to additional personal name access
points and take the name/title references out of it and make true 787 work
links instead, or separate analytic records altogether in the case of
contained works - but that's for Part 3.
On the other hand, the 787 could be made to look almost like a 700, except
the $w, so that local systems incapable of handling it could turn it into
a 700. But to provide a 700 in addition to the 787 would be a waste.
To distinguish between the various relationships, the simple model proposes
the use of indicator 2 in 787, hitherto undefined. This indicator might
take on the following values (and a full-scale model would not differ in
this aspect):
0 Equivalence (facsimile or reproduction)
1 Simultaneous edition
2 Successive derivation, edition, version
3 Amplification (incl. commentaries, illustrations, criticism etc.)
4 Extraction (abridgements, condensations, excerpts)
5 Recordings of performances
6 Adaptation, modification (change of genre or medium, arrangement)
9 Translations
a Accompanying relationship (supplements of any kind)
p Part -> whole relationship
r Review or other descriptive relationship
s Sequential relationship (like successive title of a serial)
u Unspecific relationship, based on shared characteristics of
This list is based very closely on B. Tillett's taxonomy of relationships
and Smiraglia's extensions (these being the numbers 1 through 9 above;
they are subcategories of Tillett's "Derivative" category which Smiraglia,
by empirical evidence, found to be too broad). (1)
Differing from Tillett and Smiraglia, the list is ordered, more or less,
from very close (identity) to rather distant (unspecific) relationships.
One might (but should one?) call this "relevance ranking". (Relevance is
subjective, and for the end-user to judge, not for the database producer,
let alone the computer.)
What if more than one indicator applies? Like, say, for a sound recording
of a part (one movement, an aria etc.)? Then use the first in the list that
applies. Thus, "5" takes precedence over "p". This appears sensible for a
minimal model. A full-size model would have additional work records for
parts of a work, or it would define a repeatable subfield instead of
the (not repeatable) indicator.
Another possibility: use repeated 787s to indicate several different
relationships to the same work.
Yet another suggestion: add subfields $p for Part and $v for Volume to
the 787 definition and use these subfields to relate to parts. But make
$v sortable to allow for automatic arrangement of parts in correct sequences!
One might think of adding $l to 787, but the language is redundant anyway
because of 008 and/or 041.
The physical medium or format adds another dimension which we need not
discuss here. Of course, to have a work record act as a device to
collocate several editions in different media would be a welcome effect.
The OPAC or retrieval software can certainly be made to give the user
a selection option for media type, in addition to everything else.
Work authority records?
How can this scheme be applied in cataloging, what will the OPAC user see?
This at once raises the question "Don't we need work authority records first,
to serve as targets for the links in the 787?" Not necessarily. If we have a
record for the original edition of a work, then this may do double duty as a
work record. If not, then a uniform title authority record with a $f and $t
can be used. For the minimal model, this is sufficient. It means we have no
need to define anything new beyond what USMARC already has.
The $t subfield is a bit ugly in that the initial article cannot be marked.
To simply omit it may have been found tolerable by many, but for work
authority records it is not good enough, not for every language at least.
But that's another subject.
Instead of a name/title authority record one might think of a skeletal
bibliographic record with a 100 , 240$a and 260$c to serve as work record.
Suppose, by way of example, we have three items to catalog:
[1] A translated edition of Shakespeare's "Macbeth"
[2] An English and Italian vocal score of Verdi's "Macbeth" opera
[3] A sound recording of a performance of the latter.
For the two works involved, we use these authority records as work records:
001 a888
100 1 $aShakespeare, William$d1564-1616$tMacbeth$f1605
and
001 a999
100 1 $aVerdi, Giuseppe$d1813-1901$tMacbeth$f1847
787 16$w888
The second has a 787 link to the first, saying it is an adaptation of it.
Our bib records will then have these core elements:
[1]
100 1 $aShakespeare, William$d1564-1616
240 10$aMacbeth.$lItalian [redundant because of 787?]
245 10$aMacbeth
787 12$wa888 [it is an edition of a888]
787 19$wa888 [it is also a translation]
[2]
100 1 $aVerdi, Giuseppe$d1813-1901
240 10$tMacbeth.$sVocal score.$lEnglish & Italian
245 10$aMacbeth :$bopera in four acts
787 16$wa999 [an arrangement of a999]
[3]
100 1 $aVerdi, Giuseppe$d1813-1901
245 10$tMacbeth$hsound recording
787 15$wa888 [it is a performance recording]
The links in 787 can enable software to find and display the work records
upon demand, and to collocate and display records related to a work record
in all the various ways. IOW, the 787 as defined here is all that's needed,
the rest is "only" software.
(At Braunschweig Univ. Lib., we did an implementation into the USMARC
database we keep for compatibility studies, and it was only an hour or
so of work.)
Just a matter of software too is the support of inputting the 787 into
new and existing records. One easily envisages a "point and click" method
of making a link, and the system would have to prompt for the type of
link and the (optional) $g input (plus, probably, $v and/or $p).
Establishing links can be made a quick and easy process with this model,
and it wouldn't otherwise be feasible. The task, however, to introduce
any linking model into a large database remains a daunting one. Maybe
one can write software to turn 100/240 combinations and part of the
700 $a$t fields into work authority records and new type links, but
these would have to be checked and the indicators supplied.
And what will the end-user see?
That depends, as always, on the software that presents the OPAC interface.
The emerging WebPAC technology can make use of these new elements and
index entries to let the user traverse the links. The cautionary remarks
about hypertechniques made above remain valid.
It will be no difficulty to produce displays like this for a work record:
Verdi, Giuseppe (1813-1901)
Macbeth. 1847.
1. [Adaptation of:] Shakespeare, William: Macbeth.
2. Adaptations
3. Recordings of performances
Here, 1. to 3. may be "blue" links in a WebPAC or just numbers to
enter in conventional OPACs. Following link number 1, one might get
(depending what types of relationships actually exist in the catalog)
Shakespeare, William (1564-1616)
Macbeth. 1605.
1. Original edition
2. Later editions
3. Amplifications (incl. commentaries, illustrations, criticism etc.)
4. Extracts (abridgements, condensations, excerpts)
5. Recordings of performances
6. Adaptation, modification (change of genre or medium, arrangement)
7. Translations
8. Other related works
Following link number 2 will bring up records like
Verdi, Giuseppe:
[Macbeth. Vocal score (English & Italian)]
Macbeth : opera in four acts
...
1. [Adaptation of:] Verdi, Giuseppe: [Macbeth] (1847)
Link 1 here, of course, leads back to the Verdi/Macbeth work record.
Final remark.
This part talked a lot more about USMARC than about AACR. It is very clear,
however, that the whole matter of linking bibliographic records is one
that relies on implementation into the format. If the code wants to
stay format-independent, it can probably still do so. Work records can be
defined in cataloging terms alone and printed on cards as well. Links
can be defined as new kinds of "added entries", potentially replacing
current added entries (cf. what was said about 700 vs. 787 above).
For brevity, these added entries could even be called "links". How much
sense all that makes for conventional catalogs, at least in terms of
feasibility, is another question.
Part 3: The Part->Whole relationship. to follow.
References
(1) Leazer, Gregory: A conceptual schema for the control of bibliographic
works. - In: Navigating the networks. Proceedings of the ASIS mid-
year meeting, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. (p. 115-135)
Medford, N.J.: Learned Information Inc., 1994. ISBN 0-938734-85-7
(2) Amanda Xu of MIT Libraries (zxu@mit.edu) provided me with a very good
paper (as yet unpublished?) on the whole subject of hypertext links:
Xu, Amanda: Hyperlinks in the WebPAC Systems : A study of hypertext
links to a bibliographic record in the Web based OPACs. 1997.
B.E. 19970819
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:32:00 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "Disipio Mary F." <MFD@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA>
Subject: AACR, Second Edition; Their History and Principles
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Please note that the following conference paper is now available on
the JSC Web site:
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition: Their History and
Principles by Michael Gorman and Pat Oddy.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:20:52 -0700
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Mary Grenci <mgrenci@DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU>
Subject: Isn't AACR already format-based?
Comments: cc: Lonni Sexton <lsexton@oregon.uoregon.edu>,
Christy Carmichael <christyc@oregon.uoregon.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I've been following the discussions on this list with great interest, and
have finally decided it's time to jump in.
Quite a large number of messages have dealt with library systems and MARC
issues, and a number of others have been sent either in support of or
arguing against their relevance to AACR. It has been said that AACR is a
cataloging code only, that it's not based on the format of the catalog and
that revisions/changes shouldn't take into account the format of the
catalog.
But AACR is most certainly format-based. It is based on the typed 3 x 5
inch catalog card which is then filed (under rules not covered in AACR) in
the physical card catalog. Many of the rules were formulated solely
because of the limitations of both having to manually type an entire
card set, and the size of the cards themselves. If the Library of
Congress had not decided to distribute their card sets on 3 x 5 cards,
but had used 4 x 6 cards instead, more information could have been
accomodated on each card and records could have been longer (except,
again, for the effort necessary to type out this added information)
There have been catalogs in different formats before the advent of the
online catalog, for instance book catalogs and microfilm catalogs. When
you look at one of these catalogs it is obvious that what they really
contain is a reproduction of the printed catalog card. Why? Because this
printed card is the basis for AACR as it now stands.
The real question is not 'Should AACR become format-based?' It is 'Should
we change the format on which AACR is based?' Or, possibly, 'Should AACR
be changed so as NOT to be format-based?' (Which, frankly, I'm not certain
can be accomplished since we must always have some basis for
decision-making)
Mary
______________________________
Mary Grenci
Serials Catalog Librarian
Knight Library
1299 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1299
mgrenci@darkwing.uoregon.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:55:50 +1100
Reply-To: Hal.Cain@ormond.unimelb.edu.au
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Hal Cain <hecain@ORMOND.UNIMELB.EDU.AU>
Organization: Joint Theological Library, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Subject: What are we trying to do?
Comments: To: AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
Comments: cc: mac@slc.bc.ca
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am posting this message on both AACRCONF and AUTOCAT (since I started
the theme there). Apologies to those who get a double helping.
On Wednesday (Eastern Australian time) I posted a message on Autocat
querying the direction of much of the discussion on AARCONF, hoping for
responses from working cataloguers who may not see, or respond, on
AACRCONF. I said, in part:
> We (I mean cataloguers as a distinct group within the profession) seem
> to be heading in two conflicting directions.
>
> First, the simplify-the-workflow, trim-down-to-core-record-standard
> direction ...
>
> Second, the multi-level, work/manifestation/item pattern which threatens
> to impose additional levels of complexity on bibliographic records (in
> creation, storage, processing, searching, and interpretation).
>
> We are already familiar with contemporary cost-cutting administrations
> who clip our wings (or amputate them) and with library systems that
> don't accomodate all the capabilities built into existing records (even
> distort what is there). Few of us now do *all* the authority work that
> could be done in our local systems, and quite a lot of us do almost
> none.
>
> How on earth are we to implement a new code, which will incorporate
> concepts unfamiliar to many of us cataloguers (let alone to library
> administrators and their parent institutions) and entail new
> capabilities in USMARC, new designs of library computer systems, new
> search strategies, and new display formats?
>
> And how on earth will we reconcile the millions of existing records with
> the new formats? (IMO attempts at automated processing are pretty well
> bound to produce results worse than useless because the recorded data is
> insufficient for that purpose.)
>
My thanks to the respondents so far, who ranged from vaguely comforting
to vehement agreement.
Let me make it clear that I am very much in favour of revision of
AACR2. I have no difficulty with the topics of the papers, and the
discussion is fascinating.
But I think we are getting carried away.
The substance of my qualms is expressed above. I have been reflecting
about what it is that lies behind them, and have come to the conclusion
that the first problem is in the *purposes of the catalogue*. Along
with this is a doubt whether the creation of bibliographic records is
solely to serve these purposes -- perhaps there are other purposes too?
Cutter and others have been quoted, but I think it is time to attempt a
comprehensive statement. If nobody else sets about it, I'll try (but it
will have to be next week -- other areas of my life are very demanding
just now, I can't keep up with this list!).
Along with the (real) excitement we should take a good hard look at what
we do, starting with why.
Hal Cain, Joint Theological Library, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
<hecain@ormond.unimelb.edu.au>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 07:27:37 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Antony Robert David Franks <afra@LOC.GOV>
Subject: Purpose of cataloging? -Reply
Comments: To: Hal.Cain@ormond.unimelb.edu.au, hecain@ormond.unimelb.edu.au
I think that Hal Cain is quite right in bringing up the topic
of just what, anymore, a catalog is for. Unfortunately, I'm not sure
if a "nuts-and-bolts" conference on AACR is the place to do it, since
any cataloging code proceeds on the assumption that the catalog it
produces is a "good thing". The catalog one wants ought to be the
result of the code one uses, and so, we're getting into a vicious (if
fascinating) intellectual circle.
We seem to be going through a collective period of anxiety over
whether or not our activities as catalogers are of any use to anyone.
This is reinforced by the current management craze for various buzz
words that all translate into "cost cutting." I think it bad for the
profession that a period of re-evaluation like this is being forced
by a need to do things more cheaply, but that just seems to be the
fact of the matter.
Perhaps some investigation of what people want from our
individual records, and from the collection of records (a catalog),
and a clear statement of the results, will give us an idea of what we
ought to be providing in those records as directed by the cataloging
code.
For example, I think that the CORE record continues the past
desire for a "generic" record useable by anyone. On the other hand,
it offers a nearly infinite malleability in the hands of a local
cataloger for reshaping to meet local needs in a local setting. This
is something that Hal Cain points out in his original posting when he
mentions the proliferation of records for the same item--what is
"wrong" with a gerneric record, that it must be reworked so many
times to meet so many different needs? Is it the record, or is it the
perceived needs for the record on the local level?
With costs a rising concern, this discussion runs smack into
managements' desires to adopt (copy) such a record with no or little
adaptation on the part of the local cataloger.
As I said above, these are just some thoughts I have been
mulling over in my head the last few weeks as I face some of these
issues at my own work.
*********************************************************
* Anthony R.D. Franks *
* Library of Congress *
* afra@loc.gov *
* *
* Not the official position of the Library of Congress*
*********************************************************##
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:04:20 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Jennifer Kolmes <jkolmes@COMP.UARK.EDU>
Subject: Re: composer main entry
In-Reply-To: <199708201950.PAA19415@hermes.curry.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In response to David Miller's question about why all the resistence to main
entry under title for music compositions--
I thought I'd sent a response to the list a couple of days ago, but looking
for evidence today, it seems to have vanished off the face of the earth.
I'm amazed that no one has pointed out (or am I missing that, too?) that in
many, perhaps most, cases, music titles by themselves don't make a whole
lot of sense. That is, "Symphony no. 1 in G major" doesn't mean
diddly-squat until a composer's name is attached to it. Doesn't matter if
it is a score or a "performance," i.e., recording. To me, it just doesn't
make sense to have MAIN entry under something that is essentially
incomplete. I think this is the reason for most of the resistence you're
going to encounter from the music community when trying to move towards
title main entry across the board.
Jennifer Kolmes
Head of Cataloging
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:21:30 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "James E. Agenbroad" <jage@LOC.GOV>
Subject: Why Catalog? & a Change to AACR
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Friday, August 21, 1997
The first part of this message will be self-evident to most of those
on this list but it may help put our activities in perspective. The
second part raises an issue where change in AACR is, I believe highly
desirable.
People organize themselves into groups and subgrousp for for various
purposes--municipalities and public libraries, universities and their
libraries, churches and their choir libraries, etc. In pursuit of their
current and future purposes some groups acquire documents through
purchase, gifts, etc. As these documents accumlate they become a valuable
asset--a collection--and it becomes harder to find individual items so
they
must be organized (e.g., cataloged and classified) for control of the
asset and for access by group members and possibly others outside the
group. Groups want their documents organized efficiently (easy to find)
and economically (most groups have limited funds, taxes, tuition, etc.,
and many valid ways to spend them including buying yet more documents).
Since many people use several groups of documents it will often be
easier for them if the same organizing principles are used by different
groups. Since copies of the same document frequently exist in different
collections there are economic advantages if different groups can share
the records that organize documents. To improve both the commonality of
these organizing procedures and the sharing of the organizing records,
representatives of organizers in "Anglo-America" have codified their
procedures in certain areas--document description and some of the access
points ("headings") used on these descriptions. The following are some
possible reasons to change this codification: 1. Expansion of areas of
agreement, e.g., topical subject headings, classification, sorting; 2.
Expansion of the kinds of documents to be described and organized; 3.
Widening of the area represented beyond "Anglo-America"; and 4. Improved
means of organization for control of and access to collections such as
computers and OPAC software. Thus we have this list and in October the
International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR.
Nonroman name headings are an example of an improved means of access.
Though limiting headings to the roman alphabet is not among the principles
mentioned in the paper by Gorman and Oddy, the use of transliteration has
been Anglo-American practice at least since Cutter. For most of this
period I believe the main reasons have been the limited availability of
printing resources to create cards with nonroman text and even more
importantly, the absence of staff who could file cards with such headings
quickly, accurately and economically. The existence of transliteration
tables demonstrates that Anglo-American libraries (both small public and
large research ones) acquire documents written in other scripts. If there
are those who doubt that transliterated headings deter access to and use
of such documents they should either read the articles by S. Spalding
(Library resources and technical services, 22:1 (1977) 3-12 and H.Wellisch
(LRTS, 22:2 (1978) 179-90, or imagine trying to guess how their name would
appear in an unfamiliar script such as Armenian to approximate the
frustration of library users wanting books in other scripts. At present
AACR proscribes headings in other scripts for all access points except
titles proper and geographic names. For several years those using RLIN
and OCLC to catalog Chinese, Japanese or Korean items have been able to
create and search headings in these scripts. More recently RLG has added
the same capability for Arabic, Hebrew and Cyrillic scripts. These extra
headings are assigned because they increase the use of these materials and
thus the return on the investment in acquiring and housing them. The
"Beyond MARC" paper discusses Unicode(tm) as the next step in automated
bibliographic control of documents in nonroman scripts. Thus the reasons
given above for transliterated headings are no longer valid. Unless
xenographphobia, the prejudice against foreign writing systems, is an
acceptable excuse, AACR should at a minimum permit headings in other
scripts and preferably also provide guidance to promote consistency in
their construction.
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad ( jage@LOC.gov )
The above are purely personal opinions, not necessarily the official
views of any government or any agency of any.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:33:48 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Composer main entry
Comments: To: jkolmes@COMP.UARK.EDU
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970822100018.3f9fcc12@comp.uark.edu>
Jennifer said:
>many, perhaps most, cases, music titles by themselves don't make a whole
>lot of sense. That is, "Symphony no. 1 in G major" doesn't mean
>diddly-squat until a composer's name is attached to it. Doesn't matter if
>it is a score or a "performance," i.e., recording.
In terms of scores I agree with you completely. But in terms of
performances, most have titles such as "Canadian Brass : Bach : art of
the fugue", "A treasury of Gregorian chants", "French ballet music",
"Toyohiko Satoh : Chaconne : Johann Sebastian Bach", "Julian Bream plays
Grenando & Albeniz", and so forth. I see nothing wrong with entry under
the title as on the album, lots of 246s, and *added* entry under
700$aComposer$tComposition title, and 700$aPerformer.
I can see David's point.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:04:41 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Gorman & Oddy's paper
Comments: To: autocat@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: cc: VLAFORUM@UVVM.UVIC.CA, BCCATS-L@MALA.BC.CA
Michael Gorman and Pat Oddy in their "The Anglo-American Cataloguing
Rules Second Edition : Their History and Principles" have written a short
(14 p.) but content filled paper which delivers several well aimed
wallops.
The underlying principles of AACR2 are clearly and succinctly stated.
"Unilateral change within AACR2 itself [departing from ISBD] would be a
major retrogressive step." "There is need for some change but that
change should be gradual, evolutionary, and within the structures and
principles of AACR2."
"There has been some extraordinary misguided and misinformed discussion
on the need to create 'master records' for works that are manifested in
many different physical forms ... ; the idea of a 'master record' for
several manifestations of the same work is a cataloguing nonsense."
(They lay it on the line don't they?)
Gorman and Oddy made ten recommendations, with none of which I would take
exception. I would only take exception to the position taken in support
of one of them.
1) We should get rid of the "special" rules which were imported for
political reasons after Lubetzky resigned, e.g., music and laws. (I hope
those awful constructed main entries for treaties will be among the first
to go.)
2) We should prune descriptive rules which deal with particular cases,
and leave these to manuals produced by specialists in the various fields.
3) We should resolve the issue of "unpublished" items. (If this means
arriving at sensible information for those ISBD areas now left empty,
wonderful.)
4) Include new media, especially electronic, including those accessible
remotely.
5) Access issues for new media should be studied without creating "case
law" for each.
6) They recommend the commissioning of a consultant to review the whole
main entry issue. Earlier they advocated that all access points be
equal, with none designated as main.
This is my one disagreement with this *very* level headed paper. True,
the main entry is outside the ISBD, as are other access points including
subject headings. But author/composer/artist as most important (main)
access point for their works is in my view a valid concept. For card
catalogues, printed book catalogues, single entry lists, bibliographies,
and as added entries for related works, a citation composed of single
author/composer/artist plus title is by far the simpler method, as well
as being a time honoured, solution. Once there are two or more authors
(as opposed to four or more as at present) I've no objection to
considering the title to be main entry, and all other access points
equal.
7) We should resolve the microform issue. (LC is still using AACR1, and
most U.S. libraries have followed their practice.) No suggestions are
made for doing so. I would favour a compound imprint following AACR2
1.4G4, with the print publisher followed by the microform manufacturer,
and a compound collation, with the original pagination in curves
following the smd.
8) We should review the examples.
9) We should consolidate a unified MARC and AACR2. (With renumbering of
5XX one hopes!)
10) We should ask LC to review and curtail the LCRI program.
Why doesn't JSC simply dominate Gorman to be the Lubetzky of AACR3, and
defend him from those who would complicate his clear vision? But make
him keep main entry of course :-{)}.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 11:21:27 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Paper by Gorman & Oddy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
A few remarks on the recent conference paper,
"The Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Edition : Their History
and Principles"
by Michael Gorman and Pat Oddy
Most of my remarks are rather questions, and questions of an outsider.
An outsider, however, who is trying to do what little he can to bridge
the gulf between incompatible codes and concepts. Yet my perception
may be incorrect or incomplete.
"Principles"
One is wondering why there is no mentioning of objectives before listing
the principles of the code. But then the code itself contains no reference
to these objectives. Discussions in this list have indicated that
there may be a need to talk about objectives, esp. when it comes to
collocation. Vellucci's paper (and the work of Tillett and Smiraglia)
have made it clear that there are important bibliographic relationships
currently not traced in catalogs. Will classical objectives have to be
extended, re-evaluated, reformulated for the online age?
The main tasks of the code, ever since Cutter, are to locate (item centered)
and to collocate (work centered). Access points have to serve both ends,
and this is a source of conflict which the principles try to minimize.
"The importance of AACR2"
Just for historical correctness (re: paragraph 3.)
The German Code RAK (Regeln fuer die Alphabetische Katalogisierung) was
developed at the same time and gradual introduction in Germany began
around 1970. The finalized version was published in 1977.
RAK have the same clear distinction as AACR2 between description and access.
(Both claim to be based on the Paris Principles of 1961 anyway, and that's
where this comes from. ISBD was used in RAK from the start, too.)
AACR2 may be called the "first global cataloging code", but the German-
speaking countries are uncharted territory still. In the REUSE talks
(sponsored by OCLC) we have concluded that a globalized authority file
for names would be a big step forward. The name authorities contain
numerous German and other non-English name forms already, but these
variant forms carry no identification of language, nationality or
cataloging code. Is this just a format question? There are incongruences
between German and US authority data, esp. for corporate names. These we
will try to straighten out, though certain problems will remain. But a
consolidated authority file would still have to reflect which of the
various name forms are "our" main and reference forms.
The other major area of incompatibility is with series and multivolume
items, and I'm trying to put something together about this and post it
later this week.
A third factor are major differences in transliteration of Cyrillic and
other scripts. UNICODE is a promise on the horizon, but what are we going
to do about legacy data then? Nobody knows it.
It is quite surprising to watch (under 6.) Gorman and Oddy foreseeing the
"ultimate elimination" of the main entry as an "unnecessary complication
of little relevance to the computerized catalogues of today". Did they
not follow discussions in this list or in AUTOCAT? I thought we had
gotten beyond that, but I may be wrong.
"Description/ISBD"
The ISBD is praised as the "most successful international endeavor in biblio-
graphic standardization". Can it be taken for granted that the ISBD is
to be the display standard for online catalogs as much as it was and is the
standard for card and list formatting? Should the code not make a clear
statement here? Either this, or there would have to be, for example, a list
of standardized display labels to be used in OPACs. As of now, displays
are less standardized than ever before. One may argue that this is not a
fault of the code but of librarians letting things happen. In the age of
cards, who would have tolerated non-standard card layouts?
Online catalogs have more elements than access points (index entries) and
record displays. Of particular importance is the short (one or two line)
display for result sets. No two systems seem to be alike in this aspect.
Since these short displays have important functions with regard to the
objectives of the catalog (identification and collocation), should the
rules not at least set a minimum standard or make recommendations as to
what data elements should be included and in what order? This list need
not be reminded that this is one area where the "main entry" retains its
importance. It is now urgent to find a new name for it!
IMHO, these are not matters to be shrugged off lightly. The result is that
users cannot anymore know a catalog when they see one. One is tempted to
say libraries are losing part of their identity in the public's mental image.
Before long, a catalog will be, for many users, "just another search engine
or something like that, but somewhat fussy, and none of the documents are
online".
"Where are we now?"
Gorman and Oddy vehemently oppose calls for "simplification" where these
amount to an abandonment of authority control. Now this is one of the
really difficult concepts to grasp for non-catalogers. There was the
suggestion in this list, recently, that it would be good to have a
"Layperson's Introduction to AACR". It may be too much to hope that
administrators could be turned around with this, but on the other hand,
you simply cannot present a copy of AACR to an administrator or a controller
of the public purse in the hope that they read and understand before they
make decisions. Don't have a cataloger write this introduction, but find a
science writer (or, why not, someone like Nicholson Baker). They write
about everything from quarks to black holes in everyday language, and
where is cataloging more difficult than subjects like those?
I have experienced a need for this introduction in Web circles too:
people recently got fascinated about the "Dublin Core" and completely
misunderstood it as being a new and wonderfully simple format-and-code-
in-one, and it was well nigh impossible to make it clear that there is
and remains the need for heavyweight codes like AACR and XXL-size
formats like MARC. These standards are coming under scrutiny by
self-appointed metadata experts with no library background. Some of
those people are not without influence. How are we going to defend our
standards against new competition?
"An agenda for managed change"
Why are filing rules missing on this list? It bears repeating: computers
don't file, they sort. Character by character, in ASCII sequence - that's
all they know. Software can improve a few things, admitted, but not enough.
Card filers could identify initial articles, filers could correctly arrange
numbers, filers consciously made subarrangements where appropriate, they
did part of the work necessary for collocation.
Filers got dismissed, computers took their place, and we know the results.
In the rules for access points, there has to be more regard for filing or
you'll never get rid of nonsense arrangements, like "10" between "1" and
"2". This is not merely a programming problem. The result of too little
regard for filing is inconsistency. People bend the rules until they get
what looks right - in their system! Most infamous example: the omitted
initial article in the $t. This is now even LC practice without being
covered by the rules, and I dare doubt Gorman and Oddy would consent
to a rule change that would openly sanction this practice.
Filing rules are not a terribly difficult matter IF you get the structure
of access points right. If you have, for example, elements like Arabic or
Roman numerals as part of certain access points, implicitly making
assumptions about the knowledge of (now extinct) filers, you invite
rule bending and thus inconsistency in databases.
A remark for the historically minded: the North-American preface to the
1967 edition of AACR says, on the matter of filing: "There seems to be
no serious bar, however, to purely formal modifications in headings for
the purpose of achieving by mechanized means the same order contemplated
by the rules." This statement is not repeated in AACRII. But have those
"formal modifications" been made?
It boils down to this: the rules are giving no guidance for filing
(e.g., what elements in a name entry to disregard, and how to arrange
the various parts of name and name/title entries), the format is not
giving any guidance either (as to which subfields to file on or not,
and in what order). What is an implementor to do if librarians want
string indexed name and name/title sequences, or sorted arrangements
of result sets? Librarians have to think up their own solutions locally,
or leave it all to the vendors. As long as a system has basically name
and keyword access, there's not much trouble. But as systems leave this
simple stage behind and introduce string indexing, sorted result
sets, and collocation options, trouble begins.
Thank you for your patience. Bernhard Eversberg.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 09:23:44 -0700
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Dan Kniesner <kniesner@OHSU.EDU>
Subject: Paper by Gorman & Oddy -Reply
Comments: To: EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I would like to pick up on Bernhard Eversberg's good comments on the Gorman &
Oddy paper, and expand on his section on filing in online catalogs. I'll also
touch on the main entry issue.
>"An agenda for managed change"
>Why are filing rules missing on this list? It bears repeating:
>computers don't file, they sort. Character by character, in
>ASCII sequence - that's all they know. Software can improve
>a few things, admitted, but not enough.
I much prefer online to card catalogs and would never go back to cards, but I
want to point out one deficiency of online catalogs. It has to do with filing.
Suppose you as a cataloger or catalog user would like to find the journal
"Scientific American" in a catalog. The larger the catalog the harder it will
be to find it. Why? Because "Scientific American" as title main entry is
sorted alphabetically with "Scientific American" added entries. (There are a
lot of monographs published by Scientific American.) In the card era, filers
put the title main entry first. The title added entries followed. Not so in
our online era. Online catalogs make it more difficult in this instance to
satisfy Cutter's first objective of locating. We have to do something about
this.
I don't know how to solve the problem. I find it fascinating, though, that main
entry is important to everyone even in a strictly title context, let alone
author context.
Mixing title main entry with added entries is worse in library consortia union
catalogs such as Orbis in the Pacific Northwest (U.S.) or Ohiolink in Ohio
(U.S.). To see what I mean, look at: http://orbis.uoregon.edu and search for
"Scientific American". Then transport yourself into the mind of a catalog user
who has little or no background in catalog structure or fundamentals. (Not to
pick on Orbis, the same will be true with almost any online catalog.)
If filing in online catalogs is not appropriate to mention in the revision of
AACR2, where *is* it appropriate? Can ALA filing rules separately have the same
force on catalog designers and vendors as AACR2 does? The question is similar
to the labeled displays question. Can ISBD separately have the same force on
catalog designers as AACR2? I think at least an authoritative mention by AACR2
of filing and displays would be a good thing. The Toronto conference gives us
the opportunity to make our catalogs easier to use, read, understand -- for
ourselves as catalogers as well as other catalog users.
August 25, 1997
Dan L. Kniesner
Oregon Health Sciences University Library
Portland, Oregon
Internet: kniesner@ohsu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:13:22 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Re: Paper by Gorman & Oddy
In-Reply-To: <85AC7732D9C@buch.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de>
Normally I dislike posts which quote extensively from other posts, but
Bernhard's comments on Gorman and Oddy contain several paragraphs which
should be read repeatedly.
>It is quite surprising to watch (under 6.) Gorman and Oddy foreseeing the
>"ultimate elimination" of the main entry as an "unnecessary complication
>of little relevance to the computerized catalogues of today". Did they
>not follow discussions in this list or in AUTOCAT? I thought we had
>gotten beyond that, but I may be wrong.
Let's hope you are not wrong. The suggestion of eliminating the main
entry assumes the universality of the automated catalogue. In the
small special libraries of North America and Europe for which we
catalogue, this is far from the case. Outside the world of the
library catalogue, one only has to open to the bibliography in any
scholarly book to see a single entry list of works. Hal has already
mentioned the danger of having cataloguing practice diverge too far from
that of standard scholarly (and I would add legal) bibliographic
citation.
>The ISBD is praised as the "most successful international endeavor in biblio-
>graphic standardization". Can it be taken for granted that the ISBD is
>to be the display standard for online catalogs as much as it was and is the
>standard for card and list formatting? Should the code not make a clear
>statement here? Either this, or there would have to be, for example, a list
>of standardized display labels to be used in OPACs. As of now, displays
>are less standardized than ever before. One may argue that this is not a
>fault of the code but of librarians letting things happen. In the age of
>cards, who would have tolerated non-standard card layouts?
This is a wonderfully succinct statement of the anarchy of online
catalogue display. The unlabeled ISBD should be explicitly stated as the
preferred standard for full bibliographic OPAC display, with labels
specified as an option (and in time one would hope ignored like the gmd
$h[text]). Standards are also needed (as proposed by another paper) for
at least the one line display and an intermediate display.
How about a committee of three: Michael Gorman, Bernhard Eversberg, and
Judith Hopkins to prepare the text of AACR3?
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 16:55:56 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Judith Hopkins <ulcjh@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Paper by Gorman & Oddy
Comments: To: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@slc.bc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <ibXA0EJ3BUxO092yn@slc.bc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>
> How about a committee of three: Michael Gorman, Bernhard Eversberg, and
> Judith Hopkins to prepare the text of AACR3?
>
> Mac
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
Only if it contains a provision for Main entry!
Judith
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 16:40:01 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Paper by Gorman & Oddy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
and there was also a short reply by Judith Hopkins, following Mac:
> Date sent: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 16:55:56 -0400
> Send reply to: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
> AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
> From: Judith Hopkins <ulcjh@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Paper by Gorman & Oddy
> To: AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
> On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> >
> > How about a committee of three: Michael Gorman, Bernhard Eversberg, and
> > Judith Hopkins to prepare the text of AACR3?
> >
> > Mac
> >
> > __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
> > {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> > ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
> >
>
> Only if it contains a provision for Main entry!
>
> Judith
>
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:28:01 UT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Thomas Brenndorfer <ThomasB@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
Subject: Paper by Gorman & Oddy -Reply
-----Original Message-----
From: International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR On Behalf Of Dan Kniesner
Sent: Monday, August 25, 1997 12:24 PM
To: AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Paper by Gorman & Oddy -Reply
Suppose you as a cataloger or catalog user would like to find the journal
"Scientific American" in a catalog. The larger the catalog the harder it will
be to find it. Why? Because "Scientific American" as title main entry is
sorted alphabetically with "Scientific American" added entries. (There are a
lot of monographs published by Scientific American.) In the card era, filers
put the title main entry first. The title added entries followed. Not so in
our online era. Online catalogs make it more difficult in this instance to
satisfy Cutter's first objective of locating. We have to do something about
this.
August 25, 1997
Dan L. Kniesner
Oregon Health Sciences University Library
Portland, Oregon
Internet: kniesner@ohsu.edu
[]
I think this point speaks to a larger issue that has been of some concern to
me for a while. For something as basic as title access points, it has always
surprised me as to how difficult these have been to me and to other catalogers
to get a handle on.
We have two tracks for dealing with title access points. We have the "found"
titles that are specific to a bibliographic item. These are coded in 246 and
740, and would also include the title proper, 245$a. We also have "controlled"
titles, which include 7XX forms, series, subject titles, and main entry
uniform titles. For all title access points (except as subjects), we must
provide a corresponding descriptive justification.
However, what happens when we construct a single index of all titles? Far from
behind an outstanding feature, I find this an unwieldy, convulated way of
creating a catalog. Qualified uniform titles are mixed with the almost
identical titles proper, with the almost identical variant titles. Or maybe
they're not mixed at all, such as name-title forms ending up in the author
index.
This is a breakdown of how title access is treated:
Main entry uniform title:
-130, 100+240; 100+245 can also be considered in this context
Variants to main entry uniform titles
-246; 245 if 130 or 240 used
Alternate place for variants:
-on authority records if used/created
Descriptive justification:
-245; 500 notes for variant titles
Analytical and related uniform titles:
-7XX
Variants to analytical and related uniform titles:
-740 (as found on the bibliographic item)
-other variants could be cross-references on an authority reocrd
Descriptive justification:
-various fields including 245, 500, and 505
Series:
-440, 8XX
Variants to series:
-4XX cross-references on series authority
Descriptive justification:
-440 or 490 1_
Subjects:
-6XX
Variants to titles treated as subjects:
-4XX cross-references on subject authority
No descriptive justification
I also noted that the LC Rule Interpretations recently dropped their point on
26.4B that deals with variant title access, such that the variant title would
be found under author. Instead of:
100 $aSherwood, Rankin.$tPony express to railways
400 $aSherwood, Rankin.$tBefore the West was won
all variant title access would be done through the bibliographic record:
246$aBefore the West was won
(the 246 joins the 245 as being title access points to the titles as found on
the item)
The former method demonstrated how alternate forms of "controlled" names of
works could be constructed. The latter deals with titles as found on the item,
and is specific to the bibliographic record, not to an authority record.
Also, I think there is some confusion on the nature of records for works.
Authority records for titles are, in a rudimentary fashion, work records, not
just administrative control records to ensure consistency in the spelling of
access points. I don't think they are intended to be a front-end substitute
for descriptive records of unique bibliographic items--they are "post-factum"
records, springing from the need for authority control. Moreover, I think much
of the discussion of authority records becoming work records have been on the
need to tabulate relationships between works and to outline bibliographic
history, not to create a parallel descriptive record encompassing all physical
manifestations (which would indeed be impossible to create).
But this is the issue, surely, that is being discussed from numerous angles?
We have a parallel construction already, with variant titles as found on the
item being direct access points to the item, and variant titles as alternate
"names of works" and found on authority records, providing a collocating basis
for access (with series authority records and its SEE references being the
clearest example of this form).
On a side note, a series authority record, as a record of a "work," certainly
does seem to have a lot of descriptive elements that cover a range of
bibliographic items, although this may be an effect due to series' potential
alternate treatment as serials (monographic series) or monographs (multipart
items). But the issue of title acess comes to a head here, where we have a
clear separation between DESCRIPTION and ACCESS, where all issues of access
are consolidated under one control mechanism -- the series authority record.
All issues of description are handled through the appropriate note fields for
series. To extend this mechanism to all titles would be to create a rich,
cross-referenced index, where all variant titles would in fact be references,
not "added entries" with all their privileges and baggage and potential for
confusion for people browsing a title index. With this design we would lose
direct access to a specific bibliographic item, i.e. each 245, 246, or 740 is
specific to an item, not to a work. Indirect access through a title (i.e.,
work) authority record would be the same as what we do now for author and
subject authorities.
As a final point, I wonder if some of the problems with works are not in fact
a result of the constraints of the typical cataloging procedure, from
Description (Part 1 AACR) to Access (Part 2 AACR). In a card catalog, the
flexibility gradually diminishes with each successive choice we make, once we
are committed to a particular format (i.e. cards), with logistical limits as
to the number of cards that can ideally be used, and in what manner they can
be organized. An extended authority record in this environment would face
enormous technical hurdles, but it does not seem impossible to create in an
automated environment, where "post-factum" reorganization can be done with
ease and little more than a flick of a switch. This is a fundamental and
inherent quality of an automated environment -- a key distinguishing point
between OPACs and card catalogs. We see the flexibility (used more for ill) in
the variety of forms in descriptive records in OPACs. This is an attribute,
not a flaw, and it need only be directed towards constructive ends!!
Any construction can be described, even if the construction is only an
abstract idea. The excellent contribution of Gorman and Oddy is flawed by this
one logical oversight. Any work can be described by a record -- an annotated
bibliography can function as a record for all manifestations of a work. A
"cataloging" record for a work is not so much a logical impossibility but a
technical nightmare. However, within the confines of authority control
records, a great deal of information can be included. The elements of such a
work record would derive from the bibliographic records as happens now, but
along with spelling and variant access issues, one could certainly add
information about relationships and bibliographic history. Difficult for a
card catalog? Sure, but not necessarily so with an automated environment,
where data can be interfiled and mixed on the fly, and be dynamically updated.
Perhaps we are too fixated with the logistical constraints of card catalogs.
"MAchine-Readable Cataloging" is a term that highlights only a few narrow
aspects of computer technology. The inherent capabilities of computers to
reorganize and collect information on a massive scale, provided initial data
is coded correctly, inevitably lead one to a concept of "MAchine-Generated
Cataloging." A heady concept? Not really, as we have seen numerous complaints
about machine-generated descriptive displays for OPACs. Recently, I was in the
position of fine-tuning default display options. A flick of switch -- that was
all that was required to change the displays of a quarter of a million
records. Standards are a good thing for descriptive records, but cataloging
standards that take into the account of a computer's ability to create all
kinds of records, even functional work records that meet specific needs such
as tabulating relationships, would be a truly great thing.
Tom Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
thomasb@msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:55:16 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Author added entry for serials
If the proposed expansion of the definition of serials is extended to
include the successive editions of major legal works, the absence of
author added entry in serial records will be a major problem. (This has
been mentioned by Aaron Kupferman in another venue.) Not only are there
the original authors' whose surnames are often at head of title, but
there are the redactors of the successive editions transcribed in 250$b,
which are too often used as main entry in monograph records, in blatant
contradiction of legal citation.
The most frequent change we make in serial records found on RLIN for
annual legal symposia held by The Practicing Law Institute, is to add
notes and added entries for the chairpersons. (The same chairs often
serve for several years, so this does not require a change to the record
each year.) There is other information routinely part of monograph
records for symposia not in the serial record, such as the number within
the series, the date and place of the symposia, and of course the CONSER
omission of 260$c.
If the definition of serial is to be expanded to include material
now catalogued as monographs, serial cataloguing, which has been
wandering off on its own, is going to have to be more closely aligned
with monograph cataloguing. Otherwise special libraries in general,
and legal collections in particular, will not be well served.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 09:29:54 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Re: Tom Brenndorfer on Gorman and Oddy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Writing about title access problems, using "Scientific American" as his
example, Tom Brenndorfer said:
> I think this point speaks to a larger issue that has been of some concern
to
> me for a while. For something as basic as title access points, it has
always
> surprised me as to how difficult these have been to me and to other
catalogers
> to get a handle on.
What Tom Brenndorfer writes about title access doesn't make it clear
enough what kind of index he has in mind - it sounds like he is talking
about a keyword index all the time. This is not the only, albeit the
most frequently found approach.
Even worse than his example, "Scientific American", are the two most
frequently cited research journals, "Science" and "Nature".
As alternative examples, I'm throwing in here several screenshots from
our OPAC (containing some 450.000 title records).
First: the combined keyword/subject heading index, at "science"
1 sciecles
932==>science
23 science *
1 science -- abstracts -- periodicals -- bibliography *
1 science -- awards -- history *
1 science -- bibliography *
1 science -- bibliography -- catalogs *
1 science -- bio-bibliography *
1 science -- computer-assisted -- congresses *
1 science -- congresses *
1 science -- czechoslovakia -- history -- 19th century *
1 science -- data processing *
1 science -- developing countries -- history -- encyclopedias *
2 science -- dictionaries *
1 science -- directories *
2 science -- directories -- bibliography *
1 science -- europe -- history *
1 science -- europe -- history -- 16th century *
1 science -- europe -- history -- 17th century *
1 science -- europe -- history -- 18th century *
1 science -- experiments -- history *
1 science -- germany -- history *
Here, you are not going to find the "Science" journal without some
persistence.
There is, however, the separate periodical title index, this one being
a phrase or string index: (a flick of a button switches over to this)
1 sci rsc medicinal chemistry symposium ; 1983
1==>science
1 science abstracts / series a, physics abstracts
1 science abstracts / series b electrical and electronics abstracts
1 science abstracts / series c, computer and control abstracts
1 science abstracts <piscataway, nj> / a
1 science abstracts physics and electrical engineering
1 science abstracts section a physics
1 science abstracts section b electrical engineering
1 science abstracts series a
1 science abstracts series b electrical and electronics abstracts
1 science agronomique
1 science and agriculture
1 science and culture series ; 5
1 science and its conceptual foundations ; 1988
1 science and its conceptual foundations ; 1993
1 science and its conceptual foundations ; 1994
1 science and its conceptual foundations ; 1996
1 science and medicine 1993
1 science and technology
1 science and technology for the technical man in management
1 science at work ; 1989
here, "science" is only one entry, and the one you are looking for.
At the "scientific american" position, we see this:
1 scientia sinica series b chemical biological agricultural medical and
ea
1==>scientific american
1 scientific american library
1 scientific american library ; 9
1 scientific american library ; 20
1 scientific american library ; 34
1 scientific american library ; 35
1 scientific american library ; 42
1 scientific american library ; 49
1 scientific american library ; 59
1 scientific and engineering computation ; 1992
1 scientific and technical aerospace reports
2 scientific and technical information publication
1 scientific and technical journal fujitsu
1 scientific and technical memoranda european space agency
2 scientific and technical memorandum
2 scientific and technical report
1 scientific and technical reports // euratom
1 scientific and technical reports european space agency
1 scientific and technical review eldo esro
1 scientific annual report gbf, gesellschaft fuer biotechnologische fo
and you get the idea. Given the right software with the appropriate switches
to flick, it is all a matter of indexing. Changes are possible anytime, too,
just like with displays. (Index reorganisation can take a few hours, though)
Tom Brenndorfer then goes on writing about the topic of work records
and series authority records,
> Also, I think there is some confusion on the nature of records for works.
> Authority records for titles are, in a rudimentary fashion, work records,
not
> just administrative control records to ensure consistency in the spelling
of
> access points.
I intend to get back to this in Part 3 of my "Linking" series, later this
week (hopefully).
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 09:52:45 -0400
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "David P. Miller" <dmiller@CURRY.EDU>
Subject: super work records
Tom Brenndorfer spoke very well to a question that I've been mulling
over, regarding the idea of "work records":
"Also, I think there is some confusion on the nature of records for
works. Authority records for titles are, in a rudimentary fashion, work
records, not just administrative control records to ensure consistency in
the spelling of access points. I don't think they are intended to be a
front-end substitute for descriptive records of unique bibliographic
items--they are "post-factum" records, springing from the need for
authority control. Moreover, I think much of the discussion of authority
records becoming work records have been on the need to tabulate
relationships between works and to outline bibliographic history, not to
create a parallel descriptive record encompassing all physical
manifestations [...]
Any work can be described by a record -- an annotated bibliography
can function as a record for all manifestations of a work. A
"cataloging" record for a work is not so much a logical impossibility
but a technical nightmare. However, within the confines of authority
control records, a great deal of information can be included. The
elements of such a work record would derive from the bibliographic
records as happens now, but along with spelling and variant access
issues, one could certainly add information about relationships and
bibliographic history. Difficult for a card catalog? Sure, but not
necessarily so with an automated environment, where data can be
interfiled and mixed on the fly, and be dynamically updated."
This idea, if I understand him correctly, of creating a master record for
different manifestations of a work, based on machine-collated
information drawn from bibliographic records, is intriguing. As I read
the "super work" record idea, though, it goes beyond this to include
works with derivative and shared-characteristic relationships, to use
Tillett's categories. These are not generally considered manifestations
of the same work (leaving aside, for the moment, the disagreement
about performances of music).
Fattahi's Prototype Catalogue of Super Work Records includes an entry
for the _Arabian Nights_ , an anonymous classic. Here are several
works related to the _Arabian Nights_, which might be usefully related
in a catalog display:
1) The musical composition _Scheherazade_, both its scores and
performances. This piece has a shared-characteristic relationship with
the _Arabian Nights_, in that it takes the latter as its subject. (It is not a
setting, abridgement, edition, translation, amplification, etc.)
2) The short story "Dunyazadiad," by John Barth. This is a work of
metafiction, told from the perspective of Scheherazade's younger sister
"Doony". It also has a shared-characteristic relationship, in that it
takes the telling of the _Arabian Nights_ as its subject.
3) The unpublished play, "Scheherazade's Sister", an adaptation of the
Barth play, performed in the mid-1980s by TheaterWorks, a Boston
theater company I was associated with. Not an adaptation of the
_Nights_, but does have a shared-characteristic relationship with it.
4) Recorded performances of the playscript. These would not be
performances of 2), may or may not be separate works from 3), and
have nothing to do with 1). These recordings are three degrees of
separation from the _Nights_.
The relationships between these works could be made clear to the user
through a kind of "super work" record -- one which is neither a
descriptive bibliographic record, nor an authority record. This sort of
"super work" record would be a kind of switching mechanism,
establishing links between members of a bibliographic family. It could
indeed express the "abstract work" to an extent that a descriptive
record can't -- because, as I stated here before, an "abstract work"
cannot be delimited, or described in any detail apart from a
manifestation. But the "super work record" as switching mechanism
could express something of what a progenitor work -- the _Arabian
Nights_ -- has come to represent in world culture by aggregating its
manifestations and related works. It could provide, for the end user, the
basis for the type-of-work display that Martha Yee posits on p. 26 of
her paper.
I'm addressing this because I think that the need to aggregate members
of a bibliographic family is real, and the activity would serve a useful
end -- but the proposal to create descriptive records for "abstract
works" doesn't seem to meet that need.
David Miller
Levin Library, Curry College
dmiller@curry.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:10:35 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Jurisdiction in imprint
The AACR2 provision which allows cataloguer judgement to be used in
deciding whether a city needs jurisdiction transcribed or supplied in
imprint has lead to great variety in practice. The rule provides the
same rationale for transcription as for supplying, so logically the
jurisdiction being on the prime source should not affect what is given in
the description. In fact, cataloguers almost always transcribe the
jurisdiction if present, but supply it only when they feel it is needed.
This one often sees "Boston, Mass.", but one usually sees just "Boston"
rather than "Boston [Mass.]", while if the rule were being applied as
written, they would occur equally.
Further variety is caused by the LCRI which instructs that a postal code
is to be transcribed rather than supplying the AACR abbreviation for the
missing jurisdiction, thus adding "Boston MA" to the mix.
For purposes of standardization, easier Boolean searching, and
international exchange of records, shouldn't AACR2 1.4C3 be simplified to
instruct that jurisdiction be transcribed or supplied using the
abbreviations? Postal codes should not be considered jurisdictions.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:50:52 METDST
Reply-To: B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Bernhard Eversberg <EV@BUCH.BIBLIO.ETC.TU-BS.DE>
Organization: UB der TU-Braunschweig
Subject: Linking. Part 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
To link or not to link, and how
-------------------------------
Part 3: The Part->Whole relationship
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Remarks on "work" and "item"
3. Situation A : Work manifested in several physical parts
4. Situation B : Several works manifested in one physical volume
5. Synthesis : A and B are the same
6. A note on authority records vs. bibliographic records
7. "Work records"? A new suggestion
8. Relief for Germany
9. Examples
1. Introduction
This part has two purposes. First, to explore new ways of dealing with
Part->Whole relationships and second, to show how exchange between
German and Anglo-American agencies can benefit. In actual fact, the
latter was the primary motivation for writing this series of postings.
As it turns out now, it is not the dominating aspect.
I was tempted to use some German examples, but the problems we have
with USMARC data can be made clear enough from within the AACR2 and
USMARC framework, pointing out where and why changes and improvements
are desirable, esp. when taking the emerging new concepts of relationship
linking into account. It appears that these concepts could be implemented
with very few and very small measures - which would help remedy our
trouble with USMARC as a side effect. The handling of Part->Whole relation-
ships is largely a format question. Both rules and format do make
provisions for almost everything needed, but as in many cases, there
are useful options or alternatives which have never been used.
Discussion of "multilevel hierarchies" is not included. This would make
up Part 4 - which presently I have no intention of writing. Of course,
as soon as you can link something to something bigger, you can extend
this to more levels and construct tree-like hierarchies.
There may be errors in my interpretation of rules or USMARC data.
Feel free to correct me, it is like a foreign language for all of us here.
Beginning with:
2. A few remarks on "work" and "item".
The time seems to have finally arrived now where the concept of the
"work" has become a real focus of attention in the world of cataloging.
Whatever the wording of the various suggested definitions, for example
by Martha M. Yee (on p. 33/34 of her paper "What is a work"), they
all revolve around the idea of the work being a "product of intellectual
or artistic activity ... which can stand alone as a publication...".
A publication can thus be a physical embodiment or manifestation of
a work, but it IS not itself the work. Cataloging has focused on
"the piece in hand" for a long time, which is always a "copy of a
manifestation of an expression of a work" (IFLA "Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records (FRBR)" study). The result is that catalog records
(USMARC or other) always contain elements from all these levels. Asking
"What's the work in this publication" often reveals that either the piece
in hand is only a part of what one would call a work, or it may be looked
upon both as self-contained AND as part of some bigger intellectual product,
or it contains more than one product of intellectual activity, where each
one could conceivably stand alone as a publication and sometimes does.
Should cataloging become serious about work orientation, we have to conclude
that the unwritten principle of "one book - one record" is inadequate.
It may remain the most frequent situation, but two other situations need
to be distinguished:
A) One physical item is a manifestation (or part of a manifestation)
of more than one work
Typical case: Volume of a series
B) One physical item is host to (contains manifestations of) more than
one work
Typical case: Audio CD containing recordings of several pieces.
These situations are being catered for in AACR2 chapter 13 "Analysis".
The way these rules are translated into MARC records is still directed
by card-oriented, not work-oriented thinking. One item - one main entry
card, that's the underlying principle. Additional cards (added entries)
are then made as needed, using the appropriate fields for headings.
A "multivolume item" is regarded by AACR2 as one item.
3. Situation A : Work manifested in several physical parts
----------------------------------------------------------
First, some terminology : Series and multivolume monographs
-----------------------------------------------------------
English and German terminology are awfully incongruent.
German catalogers' jargon uses "mehrbaendige Werke" (multivolume works) to
comprise both of the above (!). The English "series" is often misunderstood
and equated with "serial", because the German word for "serial" is "Serie",
and there is simply no exact equivalent for "series". One would have to
say "mehrbaendiges Werk mit Stuecktiteln" - multivolume work with distinctive
title volumes. But that's not quite the same. Because:
Works by personal authors, since their lifetimes are all finite, are
always regarded in the sense of "multipart items" in the sense that they
will have a finite number of separate parts ("mehrbaendiges begrenztes Werk")
whereas AACR2 quite often treats these as series, just because there
is no indication as to exactly how many volumes there will be.
The traditional term "mehrbaendige Werke" should rather be abolished
because a "work" (= "Werk"), in current understanding, cannot consist of
volumes. The work is an abstract entity. Only a manifestation of a work
is physical and thus can appear in several volumes.
The term "mehrteilige Veroeffentlichung" (= multipart publication) has
been suggested as a replacement, but is not widely used yet.
The term "collection title" for the general title (found on every part)
of a series, multivolume monograph or serial translates as
"Uebergeordneter Gesamttitel" (superimposed or superordinate collective
title).
Shortcomings of AACR2 cataloging, as we perceive them in Germany, boil
down to the following, and I indicate possible solutions in terms of
USMARC instead of describing them epically or using any of the German
formats as examples:
[1]
Volumes with no titles or indistinct titles are listed in a note
(MARC 505, based on 13.4). This note, however, can contain other
information like tables of contents, and there is not sufficient
formatting in the note text, nor other coding in other fields, to make
it apparent for software that this record describes a multipart item.
German catalogers mostly think the use of the 505 for multiparts is
not a good idea at all, and no German systems use this technique.
Instead, we have linked subrecords for ALL parts of a multipart, whether
they have a distinctive title or not. Why? In shared cataloging, you can
attach holdings to the volume records instead of just one location
symbol to the title record. This way, the union catalog database can
show exactly which volumes are located where, which is supposed to
make interlibrary loan more efficient.
If the MARC world cannot warm to this idea but wants to retain the 505,
what can be done?
The easiest solution appears to be the use of indicator 2 (presently
undefined and always blank): a value of '2' could mean "multivolume".
The formatting (punctuation) within $a might be made unambiguous to
enable software to extract volume designation, date, and pagination for
every volume listed (provided someone puts them in).
AACR2 talk summarily of "contents notes". Maybe the term "volume list"
or "list of parts" or something to this effect should be introduced to
denote the case of a multipart publication.
On the other hand:
AACR2 leave it to the "cataloging agency" (13.1A) to decide if and when
they want to make contents notes. Specifically, AACR2 do not strictly
dictate a distinctive/nondistinctive title differentiation. Thus, nothing
in the rules would stop an agency from abolishing the contents note for
multiparts and introduce something similar to German practice. In card
printouts, a contents note could still be generated by software.
No rule change is called for, but changes in MARC encoding are desirable.
[2]
Volumes with distinctive titles are very often (but in our view should
always be) cataloged under these titles (i.e., given their own, separate
records) with a 400 or 800 referring to the title of the series.
Of course, there is the occasional argument over whether a volume title
is distinctive or not. Cases of doubt are probably more often decided
pro-nondistinctive (it's less work), but the opposite is more reasonable.
And there are those cases, where the first volume is non-distinctive,
but after a while a distinctive volume 2 comes out...
AND there is the whole issue of classification decisions influencing the
cataloging treatment decisions (in our view, a most distressing aspect).
Well, this jagged borderline could be completely eliminated.
New suggestion for USMARC (not for AACR2):
The series as such should be considered a work in its own right and
cataloged as such (like a serial record). Presently, AACR2 do not
prescribe a bib record of its own for the series (13.3). Instead, in
USMARC, an authority record is usually made for the series on the basis
of 26.5. (More on this, since it is quite fundamental, see under 6.)
We find this quite exotic. And annoying, because this way we never
get to see the series record. Why not?
The LC authority file is not loaded into any German systems for reasons
of incompatibility and incongruence, and we would have no use for the
vast majority of the records anyhow. That means USMARC bib records, when
converted and merged into our systems, are essentially incomplete:
we lack all the references contained in the authority records.
[3]
Subfield $p in 245 is a bad compromise. Software cannot determine if
the part title given in $p is a distinctive one. This technique, rarely
applied as it is, had better be abandoned. On what rule is it based
anyway?
Some background:
The solution typically implemented in Germany consists of
-- One main record for the series or multipart item
(This is a bibliographic record, not an authority record!)
It contains no links to the subordinate records.
No holdings are attached to this main record.
It is not a "work record", for every manifestation gets its own record.
-- One subordinate record for every part or volume, whether it has a
distinctive title or not. These subordinate records are linked
(upwards only!) to the main record via its IDNr. In the union catalog
databases, holdings are attached to these records so as to accurately
reflect which library has which parts of the publication.
Volumes with non-distinctive titles just have no title field - as you
may well guess. All other fields, like date, pagination, names of
persons relating to that volume, whatever, it can all be there.
For us, it is never relevant for cataloging whether or not titles of a series
are classified together. Shelving decisions must not, or so we think,
influence cataloging decisions. (Different libraries can make different
shelving decisions, which would compromise the shared database. But who
am I telling this?)
Cataloging or OPAC software can present the comprehensive work with all
its parts (via the index of IDNrs) but also, when a subrecord is hit,
the main record can be displayed with just the subrecord in question.
And it may come as a surprise:
This solution exists in USMARC as well, at least in theory:
Field 773 can be used to link a volume record to a collection record:
773 $w IDNr of collection [ $a heading $t collective title ]
$g volume information
For all intents and purposes apart from this, the volume record is
a regular USMARC bib record.
A paper authored by Sally McCallum describing this in all detail was made
available to me ("Multilevel descriptions in USMARC", 20 Jan 1997).
But to the best of my knowledge, nobody is using this technique.
The approach of least change for USMARC users would be to go on using
4XX and 8XX for series access points, but then change the series
authority records into bibliographic records. This would make the
indexing easier too. To establish real links ("data links") there's
the possibility of introducing $w into the 4XX and 8XX.
Another solution: (see Example 2)
If that's found too difficult, one may consider using the 787 as described
in Part 2, and use 'p' for 2nd indicator. This way, one would have all
relationships between bibliographic records implemented in a uniform way
in just one additional field. And all multipart publications could be
treated alike in this concept - the cumbersome contents note could be
altogether abolished for multiparts. (Software can, of course, using the
links, assemble a contents note for card output or display. Software could
also produce an added entry out of a 787 just like from a 400 or 800 for
the structure is virtually identical for this purpose. This means one
could even avoid redundancy.)
Navigating the relationships (i.e., to write software for this purpose)
would be made easier this way than with any other solution (see Part 2).
Every physical part would have its own record in this solution, linked to
a common main record.
Besides, every physical part can relate to a separate work, and/or represent
a part of a larger work, to which the main record would be related.
The 787 being repeatable, every physical part can have links to (be a
part of) more than one comprehensive work.
Circulation (copy) records can be, quite naturally, attached to the
subrecord describing the physical part.
4. Situation B : Several works manifested in one physical volume
----------------------------------------------------------------
The most typical examples are in music, but festschriften or conference
volumes can be used as examples too. For the latter two, however, hardly
any library is doing analytics for all contributions in such volumes.
Everybody will know the structure of USMARC music records:
(showing only those parts relevant to our discussion)
100 10 Composer of first piece
240 10 Uniform title of first piece
245 10 Title of container
505 Contents: composers and titles (not in authority form!)
511 Performers and conductors, not in authority form
700 11 $aPerformer (R)
700 11 $aConductor (R)
700 12 $aComposer of 2nd piece $tTitle of 2nd piece (R)
700 ...
For the 700$a$t fields, indicator 2 is set to 2 (analytic). These 700
fields can serve for analytical added entries (13.2) as well as for
"In" analytic entries (13.5). In practice, only the former is done, because
the "In" analytics would be somewhat deficient:
The pain in the neck is, of course, that no program can determine from
this which conductor and performer(s) belong to which of the pieces listed
in the 700$a$t entries. Results of boolean searches for performer AND
composer may therefore be irrelevant because the performer and composer
are in fact unrelated and only happen to be listed on the same CD.
Keyword searches for composer and title word are even more disappointing.
The simplest solution of this dilemma would be to make one separate record
for every piece on the CD, with its own 100, 240, 245, and 700s for the
performer(s) and the conductor belonging to this piece. These analytic
records would be linked (upward) to the main record for the CD. This
main record would not have a contents note but just a 245 and the
descriptive data necessary to identify the CD.
Unfortunately, the existing, badly convoluted USMARC music records cannot be
dissected by software into a main record plus analytic records, for
the reason mentioned. It is only possible to produce incomplete analytic
records with composer/title in a 100/240, out of the 700$a$t fields, the
other 700s and the 511 would have to remain in the main record. We went
through this exercise and produced a music database of some 40.000 records
arranged in this way. The advantage is that the anyword boolean search for
composer AND title word then yields only relevant titles. Otherwise, when
keyword indexing original USMARC, you get a hit when searching for
"mozart and trio" when in fact a CD contains a Mozart piano sonata and
a Beethoven trio. (You can access this database by telnet if you want.)
The new, work oriented solution could be almost exactly like the link
structure of Situation A: here, however, the main record represents the
physical volume, whereas the upward linking subrecords are relating
to separate works, representing manifestations that do not stand alone
as a publication. Holdings (or copy records in local circulation systems)
would be attached to the physical volume, i.e. the main record.
No rule change is called for: Chapter 13 on analytics says nothing on
how to implement analytic records in any format.
5. Synthesis. In other words:
If we turn to a work-oriented approach, we have to focus on logical entities
rather than physical items, on identifiable intellectual products rather
than "pieces in hand". If we do that, Situations A and B become
essentially the same. Two different solutions are no longer needed.
As early as 1989 Patrick Wilson stated that ".. the control of items is
achieved at the expense of the control of works." ("The Second Objective"
in: "The conceptual foundations of descriptive cataloging" / ed. by E.
Svenonius. - San Diego: Academic Press, 1989, p. 8)
That can be rectified. The cost in terms of rule changes is zero (not
rule usage and interpretations!), the cost in format implementation
is rather low. The real problems are in the legacy data. No complete
conversion is possible, whatever model is chosen. (One sometimes gets
the impression we are far beyond the point where ANY change is possible.)
6. A note on authority records vs. bibliographic records (see 3 [2])
-----------------------------------------------------
Authority records owe their existence to the card concept of
references, AACR2 chapter 26. Faithful to the letter of rule 26.5,
authority records are created for series. The online equivalent of
a reference need not look like a card reference, however. It can
function in different ways, depending on the software. The same effect
can be achieved by having a bibliographic record for the series
instead of an authority record. (Other than names and subjects, or
"works" for that matter, a series is a bibliographic entity!)
This would avoid the awkwardness of using different fields and
subfields in authority records and in bib records (100 $t instead
of 245, 643 instead of 260, etc.). Which, in the view of a database
programmer, is a design blunder in USMARC.
Rule 26.5B (references for serials) is analogous to 26.5A for series.
Yet, for serials with no distinctive title volumes, no authority record
but a bib record is made - for obvious reasons: there would otherwise
be no catalog entry for the serial. Or the authority record would more
or less duplicate the bib record, only with different tagging (ouch!
says the database programmer). And of course, one cannot attach holdings
to an authority record.
Thus we have two perfectly analogous sections of a rule (26.5A/B), yet
their treatment in the format is very different. The only reason will
be that this was the easiest way to produce the appropriate card
headings for series volumes (100$a$t directly provides the heading).
It is not the only possible way: if we had a bib record for the series
as such, the heading could still be produced, using the 100/240 or
100/245 of the series record. In terms of linking, the volume record
would ideally contain the record ID of the series record only, which is
enough to produce the heading when needed. Where this kind of data
linking is not possible, the volume record can retain exactly the
structure it has now, with the parts of the 400 or 800 composed out
of 100 and 240/245 of the series record instead of the 100$a$t of
the authority record.
It should not be difficult to convert series authority records into
series bibliographic records. The difficulty will be (ouch! again)
that these records, like most authority records, are doing double duty
as subject authority records. To have, conversely, a series title record
(as bib record) double up as authority record is questionable and would
surely be rejected. To have two records of equal content but different
structure to serve these different purposes is not attractive either.
That, however, is what we frequently have with uniform title records.
Maybe, if it comes to a work-oriented approach, the whole dichotomy
of bibliographic vs. authority records should better be re-evaluated.
This is now speculative, but authority records could be restructured
to look largely like bibliographic records, lacking a 245 and 300 etc.
That would eliminate the difference in designator definition between
the two formats, always VERY annoying for implementors. Eventually,
the authority format could be phased out altogether. All kinds of
links are made easier. Speculation!?
7. "Work records"? A new suggestion.
A work record cannot be a bibliographic description because a work, by
any definition, is not a bibliographic entity. Certainly, what is not
envisaged is a combined description of various manifestations in different
physical forms - a "cataloguing nonsense" as Gorman and Oddy would have it.
It is the elusive quality of the "intellectual product" that needs to be
pinpointed, to provide an anchoring point for new types of links, as
described in Part 2, that is to group records of manifestations in useful
ways.
Uniform title or series authority records have aspects of what a work record
might be in that they provide standard names for works. A bibliographic
record for an original edition can also be regarded as representing a work.
This function of "representing a work" does not call for a new type of
record then, but it can be made an additional feature of existing records.
The simplest implementation would be to define an indicator, and I'm bold
enough to suggest position 8 or 9 in the leader (hitherto always blank),
to say "this record, among other things, represents a work". This byte
would then make the record eligible for all those links, anchored in
787 fields in all kinds of other records, each of which, in turn, could
also have this same feature of "representing a work".
This solution appears quite alluring because, all of a sudden, we would
have work records for most anything we need one for. We just have to
flick that indicator switch to make a record an official "work record".
And then, we could go ahead and get serious about linking, straight away...
Will there have to be a whole new chapter for work records and linking
principles in AACR? Nice though it would be to have it, who is going to
formulate it, given the present pre-experimental stage of things.
And to set a standard too early is sometimes not a good idea. Just what
additional elements will be required in a work record, what additional
access points will there have to be? The discussion has only just begun.
The Toronto conference will certainly be a good opportunity to discuss
options and problems, but not to hammer out rules. A definition of
"work", maybe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Relief for Germany:
Series authority records have an 'a' in position 16 of the 008 fixed
field and thus are easily selected. Position 13 even indicates whether or
not the series is numbered ('a' = numbered, 'b' = unnumbered), and
position 12 has an 'a' or 'b' for series / multipart.
Therefore, even if nothing else happens, at least we in Germany can go
ahead and restructure those records for our databases, i.e. turn them
into series main records! Conversely, series main records produced in
Germany could be restructured into series authority records for USMARC,
BUT (ouch!) we have no indicator saying the series is a multipart item
without distinctive titles and would thus have to become a bibliographic
record with a 505. In most cases, this fact can be derived from the
subrecords (having no equivalent of a 245 then), but this is not quite
straightforward to program.
9. Examples
-----------
Much of the following is probably utterly unrealistic, but be that as it
may. Regard this material as something to chew on, and as illustrations
for the above. (All examples are from real life, but shortened to the
essential parts.)
Ex.1 : for Situation A[1]
-------------------------
a) Bib record of a multipart item without distinctive titles
001 67026020
100 10$aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245 14$aThe art of computer programming$c[by] Donald E. Knuth.
260 0 $aReading, Mass.,$bAddison-Wesley Pub. Co.$c1968-
300 $a v.$billus.$c25 cm.
505 1 $av. 1. Fundamental algorithms.--v. 2. Semi-numerical algorithms.--v.
3.
Sorting and searching.
b) New 2nd indicator for the 505: (saying "this is a volume list")
505 12$av. 1. Fundamental algorithms.--v. 2. Semi-numerical algorithms.--v.
3.
Sorting and searching.
c) A better solution: series main record + title record
(This is what might be produced out of German records)
001 67026020
100 10$aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245 14$tThe art of computer programming
260 $aReading, Mass.,$bAddison-Wesley
300 1 $av. 1-
001 85028675 //r955
100 10$aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245 00$aFundamental algorithms /$cDonald E. Knuth
260 0 $aReading, Mass. :$bAddison-Wesley,$cc1968.
300 $axxi, 634 p. :$bill. ;$c24 cm.
800 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tThe art of computer programming ;$vC.
or, better (instead of the 800)
787 1p$w(DLC) 67026020$v1
Ex.2 :
Situation A[2] : A multipart (or series?) WITH distinctive titles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
a) The authority record, as it is now:
001 n 84717754
100 10$aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tComputers & typesetting
400 10$aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tComputers and typesetting
640 1 $aComplete in 5 v.$zCIP t.p. verso of v. A
643 $aReading, Mass.$bAddison-Wesley
b) The series main bib record, as it might be:
001 n 84717754
100 10$aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
240 10$tComputers & typesetting
245 10$tComputers and typesetting
260 $aReading, Mass.,$bAddison-Wesley
300 1 $aComplete in 5 v.$zCIP t.p. verso of v. A
c) One of the 5 (distinctively titled) volumes:
001 85028675 //r955
100 10$aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245 14$aThe METAFONTbook /$cDonald E. Knuth ; illustrations by Duane Bibby.
260 0 $aReading, Mass. :$bAddison-Wesley,$cc1986.
300 $axi, 361 p. :$bill. ;$c24 cm.
490 1 $aComputers & typesetting ;$vC
800 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tComputers & typesetting ;$vC.
The 800 is a textual link to the main rec (its 100 and 245 combined)
To introduce a data link, the 800 might be extended like this:
800 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tComputers & typesetting ;$vC.
$w(DLC) 85028675
Or, more radical, a data link of the Part->Whole category:
787 1p$w(DLC) 85028675$vC
The 800 would be, in principle, redundant, but might still be supplied,
minus the $w, for those systems that don't understand the 787.
.............................................................................
Consoling remark (to whom it may concern):
The USMARC flaws cannot be blamed on the designers. Their task was to
design a format for data EXCHANGE on magnetic tape, not a DATABASE
FORMAT. Later on, it was adopted as a database format largely by
default because no database standard format existed, and it appeared
as an advantage to have the same structure locally and thus less
conversion programming effort.
And now: have fun cataloging this series! (Or is it a 3-part item?)
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail B.Eversberg@tu-bs.de
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 01:31:07 UT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Thomas Brenndorfer <ThomasB@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
Subject: Extended Markup Language (XML) and Internet metadata
The following article appeared in the PCWeek Internet site. Some of the points
raised here, and on the followup sites at Microsoft and Netscape extend upon
some points in Mark Ridley's contribution "Beyond MARC." Of particular
interest is the concluding call for more specific metadata formats, although
it is equally intriguing to note the parallels between the development of a
cataloging code with that of an electronic metadata format for the unruly
Internet.
Tom Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
*********************************************************************
August 25, 1997
Intersights
Developing a card catalog for the expansive Web
By Eamonn Sullivan
Making the Web more like a library and less like most bookstores has been a
goal of Web researchers for years, but we'll get closer to that goal in the
next few months with the development of a tool called Resource Definition
Format, or RDF.
The difference between a good library and a bookstore is the card catalog.
When looking for a book in a bookstore, you have to make do with the usually
simple organization imposed upon the information by the owners. Books are
organized in broad categories, such as fiction and nonfiction, history and
philosophy, or science and science fiction. If you know exactly what you're
looking for, you can ask the salesperson. Otherwise, you have to browse, using
the order imposed by the seller as a guide.
The only improvement on this system offered by the Web is the full-text
search, which is of limited value. With most search engines, pages on Barney
and the Smithsonian's dinosaur pages have equal weight.
In a library, the card catalog (whether electronic or not) gives you a tool
for more sophisticated searches, using author, title and subject to narrow
down your search. The card catalog is called metadata--information about
information. The ability to add metadata to Web content has been available for
a long time, using things such as metatags. But the approaches, with the
possible exception of the PICS rating system, have been somewhat haphazard.
The emergence of XML in a more or less solid form earlier this year has
provided a more comprehensive framework for metadata, prompting several
organizations to propose solutions based on XML. The main proposals have been
XML-Data from Microsoft (which is available at
www.microsoft.com/standards/xml/xmldata.htm) and MCF (Meta Content Format)
from Netscape (available at www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-MCF-XML/).
Both proposals provide for a sophisticated method to describe the structure of
information, such as properties about authorship and relationships between
objects.
This week, a working group under the auspices of the W3C organization will
meet in Redmond, Wash., to begin hammering out a specification that will take
the best parts of XML-Data, MCF and PICS. The resulting RDF specification, if
used widely, will enable more efficient searches and exchanges of information
between organizations.
For example, detailed descriptions of information structures and content will
enable Web browsers to provide more useful site maps for navigating through
large sites and allow for more customization of the way information is
displayed.
The key, of course, is widespread use. RDF will likely be open-ended; each
publisher could use RDF to create its own terms to describe information. Until
there is something like the Dewey Decimal System for the Web, looking for
information across sites will likely remain a somewhat manual process.
The bookstore and library metaphor is also true in another way for describing
the Web: The content of a bookstore is more fluid than a library, making card
catalogs a lot more difficult to maintain. Maintaining metadata on a large,
rapidly changing site would be an arduous task.
RDF is just a first step, but an important one. After that step, it will
become necessary to agree upon more specific metadata formats and terms, such
as creating something like Microsoft's Channel Definition Format for metadata.
With an agreed-upon metadata format, your Web browser may be able to do more
for you automatically, making the Web a much more useful place.
Do you use metadata now? Tell me about it at esullivan@zd.com.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 02:45:36 UT
Reply-To: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: Thomas Brenndorfer <ThomasB@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
Subject: Beyond MARC [... et al.]
A number of interesting issues arise out of Mark Ridley's contribution "Beyond
MARC," along with parallel work being done on creating metadata for the
Internet, using SGML or XML, etc.
What are the objects?
While we separate concepts such as works and bibliographic items and physical
copies, I think their treatment as "objects" (as Mark Ridley indicates) is an
interesting point worth getting a handle on. Despite the physical connotation,
the term "object" covers all those things in cataloging which can be broken
down into discrete, defineable units, whether abstract or not.
Of particular concern is the way different objects have been tagged in
overlapping ways. "Entries" generally meant physical cards entered into the
catalog, with one given predominance as the main entry. "Main entry" is also
used in different ways to describe the heading for the item or work
represented on the card. The "main entry heading" marks the card meant to be
the main entry in the catalog.
However, while a catalog card can be the object so identified in this way, the
general confusion seems to be around the concept of the main entry heading as
also identifying the "work" in the bibliographic item. In particular, author,
uniform title, and title proper are also seen to identify a discrete, specific
unit -- the main work.
As such, I find the idea of eliminating the "main entry" to be terribly
confusing. We could eliminate the "main entry" for the cataloging card (i.e.,
no card entry is given predominanc), but we can't eliminate the "main entry"
of the work, since that is how the work is identified (every work has a "main
entry" in this sense).
And then we have the bibliographic item, but it too seems to have something
that looks like a main entry!!! Priority is given to one title (the title
proper), and we often see this in conjunction with the author as providing a
unique identifier for the physical item, almost as an inventory label.
What an extraordinary confluence of concepts at the top of a cataloging
record!!
But once we identify the specific, separately defineable objects involved,
what is the "main entry" really?
Is the main entry heading not a naming convention? Is it not like a naming
convention on the Internet where every site a numeric designation and a
corresponding spelled out form that is generally intelligible. Data processing
requirements vs. cognitive requirements. Any record can have a control number
attached, but is not a name required to make sense of what the record is all
about? And what if that name also dovetails with other requirements in a
catalog such as filing and sorting and collocating? Is this not the
raison-d'etre of a name-title heading? [Of course we could have alternate
headings for different purposes, but this would increase unnecessary
duplication and redundancy, and lead to an increase in confusion].
From this point of view, one could very well say that the main entry is not
lost and forlorn in a computerized world -- the main principle behind a main
entry (as a chief identifier written in an intelligible form, whether it be
for entry card, work, or item) is similar to the core elements uniting
different components in a computerized world, such as the recipient addresses
for this e-mail.
Some of these concepts work well together with points made about SGML and XML
-- the tagged formats for designing metadata on the Internet. One point that
struck me as significant is that relationships can only be defined after the
content of the objects has been defined. We do that to a large extent in
cataloging, moving from a description of an item to an identification of the
works involved, but we don't really define or label the linked result of our
activities -- a catalog card seems like such a unitary thing, even though
there are most certainly layers of "objects" involved.
Another interesting point about SGML and XML (and I think Ridley alluded to
this) is that of the "tree" structure of this type of tagged code, with its
potential for nesting, subsumption, containment, and contextual relationships.
Even while a tree structrure does this, it shares with the more flattened MARC
format a linear structure that a program can parse incrementally to a defined
endpoint. An additional benefit for a tree structure would be incremental
displays (programmed or selected by the user). A tree could structure both the
elements found in objects, and the relationships between objects. (I suppose a
"web" concept would extend this to deal with more complex relationships
between objects, hyperlinks joining together farflung catalog records).
The filing and collocating function of a card catalog seems to do this to some
extent. We can define a block of cards under a common uniform work heading as
being a complete, dynamically created (and ephemeral) work record which draws
together through specified relationships different manifestations of the work.
Extending and adding to this elementary structure does not seem to be a big
deal, really. And an automated environment would seem to one that would gladly
absorb more complex interrelationships that cannot be easily expressed in a
card catalog format -- namely through tree structures or something of that
sort.
On a final point, another term that I thought worthy of focus is "lexical data
type," a term applied to the myriad date and number formats, and the way they
are parsed or interpreted by computer programs. I would certainly like to see
filing rules, originally defined in an analog environment, made with at the
very least a reference to the computerized world, perhaps even with a
reference to particular ISO and other standards. The undifferentiated,
character by character filing done in most computerized situations seems like
an unnecessary complication all because certain "lexical data types" were not
translated in any way. Any revision of AACR2, as far as I can tell, would be
of limited use if there was no attempt to take into account what can and
cannot be done with a computer.
Tom Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
thomasb@msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:33:34 -0400
Reply-To: mac@slc.bc.ca
Sender: "International Conference on the Principles and Future Dev. of
AACR" <AACRCONF@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
From: "J. McRee Elrod" <mac@SLC.BC.CA>
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc.
Subject: Seriality and Main Entry (fwd)
I have Aaron Kupferman's permission to forward this to the aacrconf
list, since it relates to a topic which has been discussed here.
As most of you know, Aaron catalogues law at LC, and through his
participation on autocat, has helped give LC a much more personal face.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
-------- Forwarded message --------
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:36:12 -0400
From: Aaron Kuperman <akup@loc.gov>
Subject: Seriality and Main Entry
One of the adverse effects of increasing the definition of what is
a serial would be that serial catalogers traditionally are reluctant to
make entries (main or added) for human authors or editors. This is
somewhat reasonable since a "serial" may be immortal whereas humans are
generally accepted to be mortal. However there is no rule at present that
justifies this interpretation, but rather it is an "unwritten" tradition
that need changing (especially at LC, where serials are NOT cataloged by
catalogers who work primarily with legal materials).
To users of legal materials, it is totally irrelevant if the
author of "Corbin on Contracts" or "Benjamin on Sales" has been dead for a
generation. The book is cited based on the original author, and that fact
alone requires a serial catalog to make added entries for human authors.
The citation to the original author of a work is common to many countries
legal publishing patterns, and has to be taken into account in serial
cataloging. What is needed is to educate serial catalogers to the
importance of including a heading for the human responsible for the work
if it is prominent on the title page, since that is what users cite to for
legal materials. This doesn't require a conference in Toronto, or yet
another cataloging code.
Aaron Wolfe Kuperman
(LC, Social Sciences Cataloging Division, Law Team)
This is a private note and is not an official communication from the
Library of Congress.