OLAC Newsletter
Vol. 29 | No. 1| March 2009
The OLAC Newsletter (ISSN: 0739-1153) is a quarterly publication of the Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc. appearing in March, June, September and December. Permission is granted to copy and disseminate information contained herein, provided the source is acknowledged.
OLAC Meeting Minutes:
Conference Reports:
Reports from the 2008 OLAC/MOUG
Conference, Part II:
Workshops:
- Elect. Resources
- Form/Genre Headings
- Integrating Resources
- Metadata for Audiovisual Materials
- Worldcat Local
- RDA Program
- Poster Sessions
Book Reviews:
OLAC Cataloger's Judgment:
- Sounds & Silence
- Edition or contents
- Order of names in 505
- PowerPoint on CD-ROM
- Mysteries of the 007
- Which came 1st 508 or 511
- True colors
- Computer file vs. video
- Auteur theory questioned
OLAC Cataloger's Judgement: Questions and Answers
Compiled by Jay Weitz
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Question: Can you provide me with an example of a set record for a DVD that has three films (two silent films and one with sound)? Inquiring minds want to know what to do for the 300 field.
Answer: Finding such an example in WorldCat would be difficult or impossible, even if one existed. Telling you how to treat it, though, is fairly easy. If this is one DVD (or a multi-disc set) containing three motion pictures, it would be identified as having sound in both the 300 subfield $b and in the 007 subfield $f, as the DVD itself contains sound. You would identify the presence of two silent films and one sound film in whatever note or notes you create to describe those individual motion pictures. How you present that information is up to you depending upon the particular circumstances (for instance, as part of a contents note or as some sort of "originally produced as ..." note). A DVD of a silent film may actually have sound (commonly, a musical accompaniment to the images, or in some cases, sound associated with additional more modern material such as "making of" documentaries), so the DVD would be described with "sd." in the 300 field but the film itself would be described in a note as being originally a silent film, or whatever happened to be appropriate in the situation. If you are dividing up a multiple-disc set and cataloging each disc separately, you would describe each individual disc as you normally would. For any disc containing an originally silent film that now has sound associated with it in this DVD version, my answer would not change. For any disc that is completely silent in this DVD version, you would not use subfield $f in the 007 (which would indicate a DVD with no sound) and would describe the disc as "si." in the 300 field.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Question: The 250 field for edition statements is non-repeatable. However, I have come across several DVDs where there are several edition statements. For example, it is a single layered double disc with the full screen edition on side A and the widescreen edition on side B. Or, it is the special collector's edition that also features the widescreen version of the film (in this case the film also was issued in full screen). For the time being, I have been including a note to indicate these various edition statements. But my question is: Will the 250 field be in the future repeatable? What is the rational of the 250 being non-repeatable?
Answer: When both a full-screen and a widescreen version of the same motion picture appear on a DVD, these sorts of partial "edition" statements are best treated as contents information (either in a formal 505 contents note or in another 5XX that clearly explains the presence of multiple versions, whichever makes more sense in the specific situation). Regarding why field 250 is not repeatable, you'd have to address that question to the LC Network Development and MARC Standards Office (ndmso@loc.gov), because they are the ones who administer the MARC formats. As several examples in the MARC Bibliographic 250 field suggest, when there are multiple edition statements that are co-extensive with the resource (that is, they refer to the entire resource and not to only portions of it), they are separated by a comma, space within a single 250 field. This is in accord with ISBD practice as found in Section 2.4 of the ISBD Preliminary Consolidated Edition that is available on the IFLA Web site at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/pubs/ISBD_consolidated_2007.pdf.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
“Enhancing” Order of Names in 505
Question: I have a question on the enhanced 505, where I want to put the author’s name in last name, first name order. For example: 505 00 $t Title / $r Last name, First name. Is this OK? I am seeing only “$r First name Last name” order.
Answer: Neither a standard contents note nor an enhanced contents note is intended to substitute for controlled access to the data that appear in uncontrolled form in that note. If such controlled access is desired, you should be creating appropriate added entries. On the form of notes, AACR2 1.7A3 says in part: "If data in a note correspond to data found in the title and statement of responsibility, edition, material (or type of publication) specific details, publication, etc., physical description, and series areas, give the elements of the data in the order in which they appear in those areas. In such a case, use prescribed punctuation, except substitute a full stop for a full stop, space, dash, space." As I read that in relation to the contents note, the title and statement of responsibility should be transcribed as they appear (and as they would be transcribed in an actual 245 field) with prescribed punctuation added. That would preclude your suggestion of the transposition of first and last names, unless that is the way they appear. You will know best how your own local system indexes data in field 505 (both when it is all in subfield $a and when it is "enhanced" with specialized subfields $t, $r, and $g). In WorldCat, the various 505 subfields are indexed in various ways. Subfield $r is in the "Name" (au:) word index, the "Notes" (nt:) word index, and the "Keyword" (kw:) word index. So a search in any three of those indexes, such as "au:first and au:last", should get the name "First Last" regardless of the order.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Question: I could use some clarification on cataloging computer files. I have a CD-ROM that contains a PowerPoint presentation and a PDF file of the teacher's guide that's also included in print format in a binder. I found a relevant OLAC-list post from Nancy Olson from 2003, and also the OCLC document on Cataloging Electronic Resources, but I'm not sure where else to look. It sounds like I should use Type g, TMat s (Slide), 006 Computer, 007 Electronic, 245 subfield $h [electronic resource]. Would I also have 007 Slides (gs)? That doesn't seem right, and I don't know if I should have a second 007 at all.
Answer: Although we commonly refer to PowerPoint "slides" when we mean the individual screen images, these do not fit the definition of "slide" that corresponds to the Visual Materials 008/33 (Type of Visual Material, or TMat in the OCLC fixed field) code "s". It reads: "Transparent material on which there is a two-dimensional image, usually held in a mount, and designed for use in a projector or viewer. Modern stereographs, for example, View-Master reels, are included here." Not that the (otherwise prescient) authors of the MARC format anticipated the advent of such things as PowerPoint presentations, but this is clearly limited to the sorts of tangible transparent film and sturdy mount slides that were projected in carousels and View-Masters, and the like. Nor would the VIS 008/33 code "t" for "transparency" be appropriate, because it is also limited to the tangible sheets intended for overhead projectors and the like. (Notwithstanding those dinosaurs who continue to insist on using transparencies and overhead projectors even though they are derived from PowerPoint files -- and if you've ever attended one of my cataloging workshops, you know exactly which dinosaur I have in mind.) Primarily textual PowerPoint presentations should be considered textual resources and should be treated as would any other textual resource on a CD-ROM. That would include:
Type: a
Form: s
006 for the electronic resource aspect (Type: m; File: d)
007 for the tangible computer file aspect of the CD-ROM: 007 c $b o $d [as appropriate] $e g $f [as appropriate]
GMD: [electronic resource]
300: Follow whichever AACR2 9.5B1 option you prefer for the physical description ("1 computer optical disc" or "1 CD-ROM")
538: Any system requirements, such as PowerPoint, Adobe Acrobat, and/or whatever is appropriate for accessing the files
The teacher's guide (both the PDF and the binder) sounds as though it should be treated as accompanying material. Exactly how you account for it (in 300 subfield $e or in a note) depends upon your judgment of how substantial it is, how it is presented, whether it has a title of its own, and so on. A few other considerations regarding the cataloging of PowerPoint presentations have appeared previously in the OLAC Newsletter:
voiceover narration [26:2 (June 2006) p. 21-22 (http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/june06/qanda.html#ppt)];
illustrations [28:3 (September 2008) p. 43 (http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/sept08/qanda.html#powerpoint)].
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Question: Could you please explain the functions of 007 to me? How do those subfields work both for system use and for searching purposes?
Answer: In the MARC 21 Bibliographic format, the 007 fields are actually stored as simple strings of characters. The subfielding is merely an OCLC display convention for the convenience of users. (As an example, the Electronic Resource 007 subfield $d in WorldCat corresponds to the MARC 21 Electronic Resource 007/03.) There are complete details on this in OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards in the sections on the 007 fields (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/0xx/default.shtm). In WorldCat, various elements of the 007 fields are used to identify aspects of records for purposes of record matching, indexing, displays of search results, and so on. You can get a little flavor of some of these purposes if you look at the "Format and Material type values indexed" section toward the end of the "Searching WorldCat Indexes" document (http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/searching/searchworldcatindexes/#search_worldcat_materialtypes.fm). The "Values indexed: Material types" table in particular has a 007 column that tells you which values are used for indexing purposes.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Question: On a MARC record for videorecordings, does the 511 field come before the 508 field, or is it vice-versa?
Answer: The order of notes is determined by AACR2, as spelled out for motion pictures and videorecordings in 7.7B: "Make notes as set out in the following subrules and in the order given there. However, give a particular note first when it has been decided that note is of primary importance." (Emphasis mine.) Rule 7.7B6, covering "Statements of responsibility," lists cast first, then credits other than the cast. So that means field 511 comes before 508, ordinarily.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Question: How would you code 007 subfield $d for the following situations: (1) An electronic book is a PDF file that has no illustrations, but some of the text is in a color other than black; (2) an electronic book is a PDF file that has no illustrations, but some of the text has a colored background behind it.
Answer: Presumably, you are referring to the Electronic Resource 007 subfield $d, which would be coded "c" for "multicolored" in both of these situations.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Question: Any down and dirty way to quickly decide between computer file and video dominance? The equivalent of counting pages?
Answer: One wishes there were. And yes, it would be the rough equivalent of "counting pages," to the extent that such a thing is possible. In my experience, most of these sorts of combinations have tended to be a (clearly dominant) motion picture with some added stuff that amounts to accompanying material. In cases where it’s not that clear, examine the contents of the disc and how the publisher presents all of the material for any clues about intention. If predominance remains unclear, make the best choice you can, but be sure to account for both aspects.
<=========><><><>O<><><><=========>
Question: Have you seen any OCLC records with LC subject headings that have a director along with a title in the heading? I have seen OCLC records that have directors (600 10) and another LCSH that contains the motion picture title (630 00).
Answer: Although I've not done any exhaustive searching on this, I think that if you look in the authority file under prominent and/or prolific film directors, you will find only a few name/uniform title headings. If you look more closely at those authority records, however, you will see that they are probably for published screenplays written by that director (see for instance, no00102393) or other books such as autobiographies (see n82014381), rather than for the films themselves. My guess is that the notion behind this is the same as that regarding title main entry for most commercial films, that the intellectual responsibility is too diffuse to be attributed to any one person, not even the film's director. There are some exceptions where one person is responsible for pretty much everything in a film (see for instance, no2003105745), but those would be relatively infrequent. There are occasional subject headings that combine the director's name and a film title (see #50228884, which is LC using existing copy cataloging), but I'm guessing that those are incorrect. Much more common (and I believe correct) are those records that give separate subject access to the director's name and to the uniform title of the film (see #49249577, #40395537, #17803875, #25547923, #14818432, to cite a few).
Questions about this website contact Teressa Keenan