Music and Media at the Millennial Crossroads:
Special Materials in Today's Libraries

Seattle, Washington
October 12-15, 2000

Alice Mitchell
Appalachian State University

The OLAC Conference Scholarship enabled me to go to a city I have never seen and to interact with more peers than I have ever encountered before. As a new librarian and cataloger, I often feel that I am alone in my confusion about the complicated world of cataloging. At the conference, I met many other new catalogers as well as the seasoned professionals who shared their experience and expertise. I have gained a new respect for my profession as well as for myself as a member of that profession.

The conference provided much more than an opportunity to interact socially with other catalogers. The workshops I attended were excellent. The Realia Workshop with Nancy Olson was very helpful. At my library, I seem to end up cataloging all of the realia that comes in. In fact, if I see a piece of realia, I usually beg to catalog it. Ms. Olson gave so much advice in two hours that I feel I can handle anything that comes in. She stressed that the most important aspect of cataloging realia, or any materials for that matter, is providing patron access. If we sit in our offices and lament and worry over every little detail of an item, patron access is compromised. We have to do the best we can and get the material out to the patrons. Ms. Olson's advice is the most important thing I learned at the OLAC conference. In the few weeks that have passed since I was given this sage advice, I have become more productive in my cataloging. I am sure that Ms. Olson's advice about cataloging realia will prove beneficial the next time I have to catalog a weather station, a puppet, a human model, or whatever unique item arrives at my office door.

I also benefited greatly from Jay Weitz's Videorecordings Workshop. Due to a resignation, I have inherited the video backlog at my library. I have been cataloging videos for 6 months, so Mr. Weitz's advice was of utmost interest to me. I was pleased to learn how to catalog DVDs and also to hone my skills as a video cataloger. Serendipitously Mr. Weitz echoed Nancy Olson's advice to do the best we can and get the item out to the patrons. To receive such advice from two such luminaries of the cataloging profession makes it good advice indeed. I must also thank Mr. Weitz for my increase in productivity.

I attended Amy Weiss's Computer File Workshop. I have the benefit of working alongside Ms. Weiss at Belk Library, so I had seen the dry run of the workshop at home. I was very pleased to see the same presentation with other catalogers. Their questions and Ms. Weiss's insightful answers provided new knowledge about computer file cataloging. It was also helpful to me to see someone I know interact professionally with other librarians.

I enjoyed attending the keynote speeches and learning of the new trends in the cataloging world. I also enjoyed the luncheon during which I met librarians from all over the country. The poster sessions also allowed me to interact with and learn from librarians from many different areas of the country and from different types of libraries.

The experience of seeing Seattle also benefited me greatly. I am from a small town in the North Carolina Mountains and I do not often get the chance to visit a city that is not on the Eastern Seaboard. I enjoyed visiting Seattle landmarks and drinking several gallons of coffee in Seattle coffeehouses. All told, the OLAC Conference Scholarship was one of the best things that has ever happened to me and I know I will appreciate the insights I have gained for years to come.

Return to Table of Contents

M2 = C2E
Dr. Sherry Vellucci
St. John's University

Report by Sue Weiland
Ball State University

Sherry Vellucci spoke on the integration of science and the arts, especially music, and how changes in technology redefine what the library is and what role it plays. She first traced the evolution of the library. It began with physical, owned resources and a paper catalog, where the responsibilities of the library were clear and each functioned independently. With the advent of automation, cataloging became shared and we all saw each other's records. With integrated library systems, we lost some local control of collocation and display issues, but the library still consisted of physical resources and its role did not change appreciably. Now we are moving toward digital resources and digital libraries, where location is not a factor, the catalog accesses resources not owned, and there are other lists of electronic resources not reflected in the catalog. In academia, music departments are creating digital study materials. There is a blurring of boundaries. Where does the library begin and end? What is its function?

Libraries first tried to deal with the new digital environment by continuing in the automated mode-the InterCat project is an example-but the effort proved futile. New organizational concepts and structures for information providers and information itself were needed. Metadata is a step in that direction. Vellucci pointed out, however, that both the MARC record and the Dublin Core data set have inherent limitations in describing complex situations. She suggests that new system architectures may be needed to solve these problems.

Vellucci next described the "indecs" (interoperability of data in e-commerce) principles. People and companies involved with intellectual property rights and e-commerce need many of the same things libraries do, and the "indecs" principles define them: unique identification, complexity of relationships, and the need to have interoperability among all the different metadata schemes.

Vellucci closed with a brief description of two digital music libraries, the Variations project at Indiana University and the Multimedia Library at IRCAM in Paris. She also listed areas in music information retrieval that are in need of further research.

Sherry Vellucci's PowerPoint Presentation

Return to Table of Contents

Martha Yee
Cataloger, UCLA Film and Television Archive

Report by Karen Benko
Williams College

In her excellent keynote speech, Martha Yee set out to answer the question, "What might the future of libraries, and therefore of catalogs, be if all information is eventually distributed through networking?" The following is my attempt to summarize her many fascinating answers.

The Internet could be a party to which no one came. Content providers are nervous about piracy and with good reason. Prices could be so high that the market will be very small. For end-users, the Internet can be difficult to use. This problem is due to a total lack of cataloging. It could turn out that computers are not really common enough to allow the distribution of information through exclusively digital means. According to 1997 census information, only 36% of households have computers, and not all of those have Internet connections. The work of installing and maintaining Internet connections is a barrier to ubiquity that television, for instance, did not offer. The Internet also suffers from a lack of standards and from difficulty establishing authenticity and preserving materials.

Yee put forth some possible positive consequences of digital distribution, which librarians should support:

It could be easier and cheaper than existing methods; it could allow archival materials to be used without the possibility of damage or loss. Eventually equipment for using digital resources could be so common that it is no longer considered special; this could lead to a change in the physical description of items.

There are also some possible negative consequences: Materials could be aimed at mass markets, leaving small niches underserved; access could become so easy and cheap that libraries are left out of the loop; all information could become pay-per-view, as movies were when the only place to see them was in theaters.

Yee then spoke about the future of cataloging, which she defined as human intervention for information organization. She put forth the idea that artificial intelligence, or machine processing of information, could turn out to be such a failure that future generations will look on it as the 20th century equivalent of alchemy.

These speculations are based on two assumptions. The first is that authority control is central to what we do. If it is not carried out, human cataloging isn't much better than machine cataloging. The second assumption has two parts: people don't want to pay for human intervention for information organization, and they don't want to believe how expensive it is. These assumptions lead to three possible courses of action:
abandon human intervention;
provide human intervention only for a small elite; or
continue to use tax dollars to organize information (not necessarily information owned by/residing in a library).
Yee speculated on what people might mean when they use the poorly defined buzzwords "seamless interface" and "interoperability." One possible meaning is "let's not catalog or provide authority control anymore since we can't catalog everything." Of course, we never did catalog everything. A second possible meaning refers to a postulated single virtual catalog, selectively inclusive, in which librarians cooperate to provide authority control for all works of permanent value, so that everyone will have easy access to a permanent cultural record.

This leads to the question of personnel. Should/will this work be done by highly-educated, poorly paid middle-aged women, or undereducated, highly paid young men?

When the item being cataloged is an electronic document, the very nature of cataloging should be subject to examination. Using the author's name may not be the best way to identify the document. Part of our job should be to help users make the distinction between variations in copy or manifestation, versus variations between actual editions or expressions of a work. Many works may be works of changing authorship, and changing everything else, especially title. Should a URL be considered local? True of every copy? Is it publication/distribution information, or is it more like a call number? Should it go in the bibliographic record or the holdings record? What if different URLs lead to the same page?

Yee raised the following questions about multimedia: Does text accompany moving images, or do the moving images illustrate the text? How can we describe multimedia in a way that indicates the relative weight of text, sound, moving images, still images, and anything else that might be present? Presently the only way to articulate this very important information is through use of a summary note. In many cases, the content of an item should be treated according to AACR2 chapter 7 for moving images, while the carrier should be treated according to AACR2 chapter 9 for electronic resources. We would also benefit from a better analysis of the physical description area, so that content-related information is separated from carrier-related information.

Martha Yee's handouts

Return to Table of Contents

Amy K. Weiss
Appalachian State University

Report by Rebecca L. Lubas
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Amy K. Weiss covered the cataloging of direct access computer files. She began the workshop with the basic AACR2R definition of these materials: computer files [available] via carriers (e.g. disks, cassettes, cartridges) designed to be inserted into a computer or its auxiliary equipment by the user. She reminded the attendees that although the new Chapter Nine rules that would effect the cataloging of these materials would be issued soon, they are not yet in effect. Many underlying principles of computer file cataloging will still be valid in the future.

MARC format selection is the initial, and perhaps greatest, challenge in computer file cataloging. Unlike other formats, a computer file can be cataloged on any kind of MARC record.

The definition of type of record code "m" was revised and narrowed in June 1997. Previously any direct access computer file (except for cartographic materials) would have been cataloged on a type "m" computer file record. As a result of this redefinition, catalogers must make a decision about the nature of the content of the material before selecting the type of MARC record that will be used for cataloging. Weiss handed out a worksheet that gave the group a chance to identify "true" type "m" computer files such as software and games from text documents (type "a"). The bottom line on this issue: "Don't stress over this. If you haven't a clue, use, type "m." Look and decide."

Weiss emphasized that when choosing a MARC format, it is useful to load the software and examine its contents. If you load computer files, you will be able to tell what they really contain. Often, the packaging exaggerates the contents. You may want to use a stand alone PC for software loading if possible. Weiss cautioned that "computer files are generally less troublesome to load than they used to be, but every now and again one will run into a program that will rewrite the Autoexec.bat file in some weird way and turn your PC into a large and unattractive paperweight. However, one might wish to reconsider adding such software to a circulating collection." While software loading may be time consuming and inconvenient, in the long run you are doing your patrons a service.

If you are not able to load computer files, never take the statements on the containers and accompanying materials at face value. Look at the guides for screen pictures and discussions of how to navigate in the file. Look for statements of the number of pictures or videos, evidence that information was reproduced from print sources, and anything else which will tell you what is really there as opposed to what they want you to believe is there. Statements like "develops eye hand coordination" or "fully interactive" are not meaningful in and of themselves. After all, books are also interactive and develop eye hand coordination because you have to turn the pages.

Weiss reviewed each area of the description, which is straightforward once the type of record is determined. She identified common occurrences in computer file cataloging. Titles for computer files tend to have more variation in capitalization (ex. WordPerfect) and inclusion of publisher's name (ex. Microsoft's Word for Windows).

A computer file should always have the following notes: The system requirements (538) and source of title (500). System requirement notes need to convey to the patron what equipment they need to run the file. The statement should be short and readable. A summary note (520) is highly recommended though not required. Subject analysis is not always ideal to describe contents of computer files, and a summary can be more exact.

The workshop ended with a discussion of access points and added entries. Normally a computer file will have title main entry as most often a number of individuals plus a corporate body are responsible for the work. Make as many title added entries as makes sense, as computer files have variations in spelling and spacing, and may have different titles on title screen, disc label, jewel case, and packaging.

Computer Files Cataloging handouts

Return to Table of Contents

Eric Childress, OCLC
Betsy Friesen, University of Minnesota
Dr. John V. Richardson Jr., UCLA

Report by Kelley McGrath
Ball State University

Childress began with a thorough introduction to CORC, a Web-based tool developed by OCLC to enable libraries to provide better access to electronic resources. CORC also represents a new type of development process for OCLC-- many units at OCLC, as well as member libraries, were involved early on in the design process, which OCLC hopes will permit a shorter lag time from idea to final product. CORC has four main modules:

The resource catalog contains bibliographic records for electronic resources. Records can be entered either in Dublin Core or MARC format. The authority file provides direct links to bibliographic records, allowing automatic global updates of headings in bibliographic records. The pathfinder database enables the easy creation and maintenance of subject bibliographies of Web resources. WebDewey contains DDC, suggests Dewey class numbers for Web sites, and provides DDC-to-LCSH mapping.

Friesen described the experiences she and her colleagues have had as participants in CORC. She emphasized the importance of involving public services. She also stressed the importance of starting slowly-- they began with minimal records, and the usefulness of having a clearly defined project. She also described a few of her favorite features, such as constant data, which makes the input of many similar records easier. She also likes the harvester, which creates a skeletal record by analyzing information from a Web page's HTML code. It is, however, only as good as the code it has to work with. Multiple record harvest allows the user to put in the URL for a Web site's main page and to create basic records for the various sub-pages linked from that page (like analytics). Another convenient function allows the cataloger to guess at the form of an authority heading which it then tries to match with the authority file.

Richardson focused on CORC Pathfinders. He suggested that pathfinders could bring reference and technical services together. He talked about the traditional reference pathfinder and the need to provide users with carefully selected introductory resources, rather than everything available on a given topic. He also described the experiences of the students in his class who were assigned to create pathfinders in CORC.

Childress then addressed some future directions for CORC. The session ended with audience questions and answers. One interesting question addressed the participation of public libraries in CORC. Although academic libraries currently dominate, the panelists felt that CORC's Pathfinder function could provide a valuable service for public and school libraries by cutting down on duplication of effort and helping with URL maintenance.

PowerPoint Presentations:

Introduction to CORC, Eric Childress
OCLC CORC Records: Practices and Applications, Betsy Friesen
OCLC CORC Pathfinders: Their Past and Future, John Richardson
CORC Next Steps, Eric Childress
Return to Table of Contents

Linda Barnhart
University of California, San Diego

Report by Karen M. Letarte
Southwest Missouri State University

This excellent and informative workshop presented by Linda Barnhart offered much practical information on cataloging Internet resources. The workshop covered several types of Internet resources, including websites, electronic books, electronic journals, and databases. The workshop's focus was to provide basic information on cataloging Internet resources from AACR2 and MARC 21. It also offered practical tips gleaned from the experiences of catalogers at UCSD, with real-life examples. Barnhart provided a handout that included lecture notes, cataloging examples for a variety of Internet resources, and a helpful list of resources.

She noted that Jay Weitz's document, Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLCMARC Coding Guidelines, revised 9/00, is of particular interest. The document is available at:

Barnhart briefly discussed the rationale for providing access to Internet resources through the library catalog, noting that Web-based OPACs linking users directly to Internet resources allow libraries to provide "instant gratification" to users. She offered observations on why some librarians resist cataloging Internet resources. Tangibility is one issue, as Internet resources do not exist physically. Volatility of location and content are also problematic. The management of link maintenance poses further challenges, as well as the difficulty in deciding what level pages and sites should be cataloged a.k.a. their "granularity". Other barriers include the inaccurate perception that all sites require original cataloging and the fear of creating an "invisible" backlog. More judgment from the cataloger is required since the rules are less developed than those for other types of resources. On a positive note, the number of records for Internet resources in the national utilities is increasing.

The importance of assessing resources for cataloging was discussed. A site should be examined carefully to determine its characteristics, means of access, and restrictions. Is the site dynamic or static, a corporate site or a personal one? Another key consideration is its relationship to existing resources in the OPAC. A helpful tip is to look at the HTML coding, particularly the title tag, which shows what the creator thought the title should be.

Support for the equipment needs of Internet catalogers is an important consideration for institutions. Barnhart argued that Internet catalogers need state-of-the-art workstations with the most up-to-date software to optimize their access to electronic resources. She recommends the adoption of an annual replacement cycle for these workstations.

Strategies for defining and prioritizing categories of Internet resources for cataloging were suggested. Criteria for prioritizing resources for cataloging could include: format (such as electronic journals), subject, resources maintained on a local server, locally created or unique resources, and resources maintained by reputable organizations. Barnhart emphasized the importance of cataloging quality and content-rich resources that meet users' needs and priorities. For those who have not yet ventured into cataloging Web resources, she suggested a pilot project approach, with the definition of a target number of resources in an area of interest to users.

Subject cataloging of Internet resources is similar to that for any other format. Barnhart noted that no LCSH form subdivision exists for Websites, and cautioned against confusing topical and genre or form headings. Barnhart provided a list of subdivisions and applicable sections of the SCM. There is some debate about the desirability of classification for Websites. Barnhart noted that Internet resources must be clearly identified to prevent users from going to the shelves to find them. A possible solution is to include a class number only on the record, rather than a full call number.

Electronic book cataloging was briefly explored. Current cataloging practice treats these items as digitized reprints (LCRI 1.1lA). The catalog record is based on the original print version of the book, giving the reproduction information in a 533 note. Records also include the use of the GMD [computer file] in the 245, an 006 for the electronic aspects, an 007 for more physical details, and 020 $z for the ISBN of the print version.

One of the most interesting aspects of the workshop was the glimpse provided into the innovative cataloging practices at UCSD. The use of the composite record model, local subject cataloging practices, and the addition of "hooks" to facilitate retrieval by format are some examples. The workshop highlighted the many challenges of cataloging these highly complex and dynamic resources, while proving much needed practical information.

Cataloging Internet Resources handouts

Return to Table of Contents

Susan Moore
University of Northern Iowa
Kathryn Womble
University of Washington

Report by Rod Pollock
University of Georgia

Susan Moore began the workshop with a review of resources accommodating the needs of cartographic catalogers. The most important of these resources continue to be:

Cartographic Materials: a Manual of Interpretation For AACR2 / prepared by the Anglo-American Cataloging Committee for Cartographic Materials. Chicago: ALA, 1982 (ISBN 0-8389-0363-0)

Map Cataloging Manual / prepared by Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress. Washington, DC: Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress, 1991 (ISBN 0-87071-361-2)
Natural Scale Indicator (clear plastic version)
($7.50 US dollars as of 10/20/00)
Clifford H. Wood, PhD
Professor of Geography
Director, Memorial University of Newfoundland Cartographic Laboratory
Dept. of Geography
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, Newfoundland Aib 3X9
The major distinctions between map cataloging and book cataloging (minus the mathematical and physical descriptions), were also pointed out by Moore. Beginning with the fixed fields, all cartographic materials (whether digital or not) are coded Type "e." When beginning to catalog a cartographic item, five initial determinations can help get you started on the right track. These decisions include determining if an item is 1) an atlas, 2) a single map sheet, 3) a map set/series, 4) a serial or 5) a digital map. It is also important to keep in mind that the chief source of information as it applies to cartographic materials is the entire map and "prominent" is defined to be anywhere on a map. With regards to the title proper, you are encouraged to bracket additional area (place name) information in the subtitle if it is not present in the title.

Kathryn Womble then discussed scale as it relates to map cataloging including representative fractions, verbal scale statements, graphic scales, nonrepresentative fraction scale statements, use of latitude in determining scale and the comparison with a map of known scale to determine scale. With a trusty natural scale indicator in hand, workshop participants were allowed to work through ten scale exercises. The group then reviewed and discussed the answers for each exercise.

Projection, the system used to represent information about the spherical surface of the earth on the flat surface of a map, was the next point of discussion. Projection information is transcribed from the map, its container, case, or accompanying printed material, so it is not necessary to understand the numerous different types of projections in order to catalog a map. Coordinates, the geographical grid lines used to pinpoint locations on the earth, were also discussed. It was noted that the latitude and longitude coordinates represented in field 034 are listed in the order of westernmost, easternmost, northernmost and southernmost extents (W, E, N, S), as appropriate.

Womble and Moore then demonstrated how to measure cartographic materials with thirteen examples sampling the spectrum of possibilities of map layouts and presentations. The various maps were held up and physically measured, from point to point with a ruler, graphically illustrating the many scenarios of cartography and maps on paper. Some map measurement points, among others, included: 1) measurements are given height x width rounded up to the nearest centimeter, 2) give the folded size if a map is designed to be folded, 3) if cartographic detail extends beyond the neat line, include it in the measurement and, 4) if there is no neat line, measure the "cartographic extent," which is up to and including the entire sheet.

Workshop participants received a handout on the dating of road maps, with tips for deciphering the codes of maps produced by Rand McNally and H.M. Gousha, as well as a handout regarding subject assignment for cartographic materials. Workshop participants were encouraged to not leave their natural scale indicators on the dash of their car on a hot, sunny day and to subscribe to the MAPS-L discussion list.

Maps handout (updated June 16, 2001)

Return to Table of Contents

Ralph Papakhian
Indiana University

Report by David Prochazka
University of Akron

Since most of the attendees already had at least a small amount of experience cataloging music scores, Ralph Papakhian, Head of Technical Services at the William and Gayle Cook Music Library of Indiana University was able to focus his presentation on issues that frequently cause difficulties for those who don't regularly catalog scores (and sometimes for those who do, as well). Attendees received a very well-organized handout, which was nearly 80 pages long. It combined excerpts from rules in AACR2 with LCRIs, Music Cataloging Decisions, OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards, and the presenter's own observations and explanations. lt also incorporated reproductions of pertinent parts of published scores and screen captures of OCLC records, along with a 4 page bibliography of music cataloging tools, making the handout that much more useful.

The bulk of the presentation focused on difficulties encountered in describing music scores. The following topics received particular attention:
Keeping the focus on description of scores, Papakhian talked about many of the decisions a cataloger has to make when transcribing information into areas
1-4. He gave special attention to:
There were very interesting discussions about how to interpret various dates that might appear on a score, and also when it is appropriate to create a new record for something that might appear to be a copy at first glance. (Be aware that there are significant differences between OCLC's guidelines and the guidelines of the Library of Congress.)

Papakhian described the various kinds of information that might go into a physical description statement, pointing out differences between parts and various types of scores, along with what specific material designators are used for these types. He also talked about how to handle the diverse numbers that often appear on music scores. The session concluded with a comparison of how arrangements are handled differently in subject headings and uniform titles.

Scores handout

Return to Table of Contents

Nancy B. Olson

Report by Verna Urbanski
University of North Florida

Nancy Olson's workshop on cataloging realia reflected the practical approach that keeps nonprint catalogers coming back to learn more year after year. Her one sheet handout provided a condensed version of what constitutes realia and what properties make realia unique enough to require special rules in chapter 10 of AACR2. One difference includes a scarcity of information. The cataloger must check attached tags and labels, containers and accompanying materials or, in the case of naturally occurring objects, just review the objects themselves and try to figure out their origin.

Most vivid of Nancy's advice: Don't overstudy what you're doing!!! Do something reasonable and get on with it (an echo of the famous Jay Weitz' "Don't agonize" warning in his video workshops!!). Nancy advises that, as with most cataloging, we need to start by identifying a title and then treat the rest of the record as a matter of multiple choice. Sometimes the process of elimination can be helpful with the cataloger deciding "this is not such and such."

Nancy cautioned that catalogers must be careful to distinguish between a naturally occurring object (such as a frog) and a toy representing the same creature. They will be cataloged quite differently, using different GMDs and sources of cataloging information. A cataloger error in this regard is at least bad form and can lead to the very worst sin in cataloging, misleading the patron. She explained the difference between the creator of the item and the manufacturer of an item and ask that we all catalog with the patron in mind by treating each item as unique.

The workshop ended with the participants working in groups to catalog various versions of Monopoly from the junior edition to the Elvis Presley (don't ask!!) edition. Throughout the workshop Nancy was peppered with questions from enthusiastic participants. I am sure some of those questions and her answers will turn up in her next OLAC Newsletter column.

Three-dimensional Artefacts and Realia Workshop handouts

Return to Table of Contents

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger at the University of Washington Libraries

Report by Sheila Smyth
Nazareth College of Rochester

This workshop was both practical and informative. Schiff began by describing SACO as a component of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), which allows libraries to propose new LC subject headings and new LC classification and changes to existing LSCH and LCC. The submission process and approval steps were outlined, as well as the tools needed to determine changes. The SACO home page is: and may be accessed to view tentative subject lists.

Libraries may want to participate, according to Schiff, because the existing LCSH and LCC are not always adequate or may not cover areas that are included in libraries. New disciplines and topics are always emerging. It was pointed out that headings should be as specific as the topic. SCM H 180, section 4 describes when catalogers should assign headings that are broader or more general than the topic that it is intended to cover. SCM H 187 instructs catalogers to establish a subject heading for a topic that represents a discrete, identifiable concept. When encountering new emerging topics and disciplines, current American usage is preferred for a concept. In such cases where there is no consensus among American authonties, SCM H 187 instructs catalogers to make an intuitive judgment based on available evidence and provide UF references from any significantly different terms that have been found under the same concept.

The fundaments of the MARC 21 authority format as it pertains to subjects must be known in order to create SACO proposals for subject headings. Proposals must be submitted with explicit MARC coding. Catalogers were referred to MARC 21 Format for Authority Data published by the Library of Congress for detailed explanations. Sample exercises included explanations and examples of coding for both OCLC and RLIN, when there were differences.

Schiff pointed out that the key to doing good authority work is the citation of sources. SACO proposals should contain at least one 670 field. Examples for print, nonprint and electronic resources citations with explanations were given.

Proposal forms for Subject Authority, LC Subject Headings Change, and LC Classification were examined. Change forms are available on the web at the URL listed above and may be emailed to:

Schiff kindly offered to review proposals for catalogers beginning the process and is willing to answer questions. His email address is Adam Schiff is a gifted speaker who gently reassured and challenged participants to contribute to our profession.

SACO Participants' Manual

Return to Table of Contents

Mark Scharff
Washington University, Saint Louis

Report by Linda Swanson
Concordia College, Moorhead, MN

Mark Scharff, Music Cataloger, Gaylord Music Library distributed a detailed handout compiled by Michelle Koth, Catalog Librarian at Yale University Music Library, and Margaret Kaus, Music Cataloging and Reference Librarian, George F. DeVine Music Library University of Tennessee.

Scharff began with a general concept of sound recording cataloging. The first step is always to identify the intellectual content of the item at hand. All other decisions flow from the answer to this question. From this general beginning, the presenter addressed specifics in a number of areas. Rather than proceeding on a field-by-field basis, he instead made note of troublesome or confusing areas in the catalog record.

Music Recordings Spoken Word Recordings
Unpublished Sound Recordings
Subject Analysis
Sound Recordings Workshop handout (same used in 1998)
Web version forthcoming

Return to Table of Contents

Jay Weitz
Consulting Database Specialist, OCLC

Report by Alice Mitchell
Appalachian State University

The Videorecordings Cataloging Workshop at the OLAC/MOUG 2000 Conference was an enjoyable educational experience for all who attended. Jay Weitz focused on the issues in video cataloging that seem to give catalogers the most trouble, including AACR2 rules, sources of information, the input of new records into OCLC, and the cataloging of DVDs.

Weitz began by reminding catalogers of the basic rules of videorecording cataloging. Sources of information are the title frames of the video, or the container and labels. Works of mixed responsibility receive a title main entry. A basic understanding of AACR2 rules is of fundamental importance in the cataloging of videorecordings.

Next, Weitz discussed the problematic issue of input of new records into OCLC. Catalogers often feel unsure about the video records they find in OCLC. What differences justify a new record? Weitz provided guidance in the form of a list of justifiable versus unjustifiable differences. For example, justifiable differences include: differences in color/black and white, sound/silent, significantly different length, different format (ex. VHS/DVD), changes in publication dates for reasons other than packaging alone, and dubbing/subtitles. Unjustifiable differences include: absence or presence of multiple distribution or publication dates if at least one date matches the item. Catalogers were reminded that it is perfectly all right to trust their own judgment in cataloging decisions.

The lengthiest portion of the workshop focused on the cataloging of DVDs. The many questions asked by the audience reflect the widespread confusion about cataloging new formats. Weitz provided an overview of the DVD and laser optical disc format and highlighted the features of DVD, including the huge capacity of information that this format is able to store. Weitz then discussed more technical information about cataloging DVDs. The GMD for DVD is [videorecording] and the SMD is videodisc(s). There has been discussion among catalagers about changing the GMD to [DVD]. However, the decision to change the GMD to DVD may be made locally, but it is not standard practice for records added to OCLC. The $c of the 300 field is 4 3/4 in. The 538 field is DVD, plus bracketed information detailing any special sound, color, etc. Often DVD releases of films contain extra information and film footage. If there is a substantial amount of new material such as trailers, outtakes, interviews, etc., use the release date of the DVD as the date, use date type s in the fixed field, and include a note about the release date of the original version. If the DVD is strictly a release of the same version as VHS, consider it to be a new release on a different format and use date type p in the fixed fields. DVD releases that include extra information and footage can be confusing when it comes to the playing time. For moving images, give the playing times as they would be given for a videocassette. If there is more than one section of the DVD and there are multiple playing times, state the durations in a note and add them together for the time section of the fixed field.

In closing, Weitz again reminded us that we must trust our judgment and do the best we can without becoming mired in details.

Videorecordings Workshop handouts

Return to Table of Contents


Report by Amy K. Weiss
Appalachian State University

The poster sessions at the 2000 OLAC /MOUG conference showcased innovative approaches to catalogs, and cataloging of a variety of materials.

In "Cataloging in 2020" Evelyn Pypes presented a multidimensional future catalog, with information presented in a manner akin to contemporary Web pages. Visual images, numerous access points and more flexible searching will all enrich the catalog.

Evelyn Pypes's handouts

The Digital Initiatives Program at the University of Washington shows how this multidimensional approach is fast becoming a reality. The CONTENT software created by the University of Washington Engineering Department provides a framework for Web access to visual collections. The librarians of the Metadata Implementation Group act as consultants to help CONTENT clients to create consistent, high quality metadata frameworks appropriate for their collections. The Implementation Group librarians also create metadata for UW collections mounted using the software.

Digital Initiatives Program handouts:

The increasing importance of film as a cultural artifact was demonstrated by Diane Warner's presentation on classification of feature films using the Library of Congress literature classification schedules. Feature films are usually classified in a "dump number" and arranged in alphabetical order by title. At the Texas Tech International Cultural Center Library, the films are classified by language, country, and time period, as well as sub-arranged by the director (substituting for the author) and title.

Diane Warner's handout

J. Robert Willingham also focused on the cataloging of feature films. He showcased his useful guide to feature film cataloging, noting that feature films require many more notes and added entries than do most educational films.

J. Robert Willingham's handout

Innovative approaches to cataloging were showcased by Bobby Bothmann from the University of Minnesota and Sue Ann Gardner from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Gardner, using an approach first suggested by David Allen, has used the Dublin Core elements to create a concise catalog record for maps, which condenses the description but offers full subject access. This appears to be a useful way to offer access to maps, which are frequently left uncataloged because of the complexity of standard map cataloging. The University of Minnesota libraries decided to catalog their NetLibrary books as reproductions. They used macros to add information about NetLibrary holdings to existing records for materials held by the library, and enhanced NetLibrary-produced cat alog records for materials that are available only through NetLibrary.

Sue Ann Gardner's handouts
Bobby Bothmann's PowerPoint Presentation / Additional information
(To view notes, save file and open up in PowerPoint)

Jeanne M. Piascik of the University of Central Florida libraries explored cataloging of special format science materials. She showcased a traditional cataloging approach to these non-traditional materials, such as a full sized unisex human torso.

Jeanne Piascik's PowerPoint Presentation

Librarians from Coastal Carolina University demonstrated managerial innovation and personal flexibility. When Coastal Carolina University discontinued contracting with the University of South Carolina system for cataloging services in 1995, there was a backlog of over 5,000 media items in need of cataloging. Public services personnel, especially Assistant Head of Public Services Margaret Fain, were cross-trained and the library was able to eliminate the backlog in four years.

Cross Training PowerPoint Presentation

Overall, the poster sessions highlighted the many ways in which audiovisual catalogers are using innovative approaches to cataloging media materials in order to better serve library users.

Return to Table of Contents


At the Seattle OLAC/MOUG meeting 9 librarians representing 8 institutions received NACO training and became new members of the OLAC NACO funnel project. An additional AV cataloger whose institution was already a member joined the group to also receive training.

Those who received training were: Bobby Bothmann (University of Minnesota Libraries), Kevin Furniss (Denison University), Margot Lucoff (Berkeley Public Library), Tim Markus (Evergreen State College), Sandy Roe (Minnesota State University Mankato), Wendy Sistrunk (University of Missouri-Kansas City), Karen Stephens and Mary Wise (Central Washington University Library, and Carolyn Walden (University of Alabama at Birmingham). Linda Owen (University of California at Riverside) also received training although a representative from her institution had been trained several years ago.

MARC-2 1 symbols for these new members are:
University of Minnesota Libraries MnU-WSF
Denison University OGraDAV
Berkeley Public Library CBAVU
Evergreen State College WaOENPC
Minnesota State University Mankato MnManMSU
University of Missouri-Kansas City MoKU-MAV
Central Washington University Library         WaEICNP
University of Alabama at Birmingham ABAU-MHS
In other funnel news, for the (government) fiscal year, it was a banner year, statistics-wise:

New headings: 4,131
New series: 4
Changed headings: 1,086

Last updated: June 23, 2004
Web page maintained by Teressa Keenan