• From the Editor
• From the President
• Treasurer’s Report
• OLAC Meeting Minutes
  • Cataloging Policy Committee
  • Executive Board Meeting
  • Membership Meeting
• OLAC 2008 Conference Reports (1st instalment)
  • Preconference
  • Plenary Sessions
  • Workshops and Seminars
  • Scholarship Recipient's Report
• Liaison Reports
  • News from OCLC
  • Report from the Library of Congress
• Book Reviews
• News and Announcements
• OLAC Cataloger's Judgement

The OLAC Newsletter following an OLAC Conference is traditionally a big issue, filled with conference reports and meeting minutes.  This time is no exception.  Special thanks go out to Jan Mayo, for once again putting together the programs and the recorders for the conference reports, and for delivering her content in such a timely manner.

 I missed this year’s conference and it was a pleasure to read the reports which made me feel “in the loop” despite my absence. 

As a matter of fact, there is so much to report in this issue  that I will be following suit with my predecessor, Jain Fletcher, who in 2004 divided the conference reports in half.  The remainder of the conference reports will be published next issue (March 2008).  

We have other great features as well.  We have News from OCLC and a report on Form/Genre Headings from the Library of Congresses Janis Young.  Book review editor Douglas King has submitted two book reviews, both on books of high relevance to OLAC members.  And of course, we have our always useful  and popular Q&A with Jay Weitz.

Hopefully, you will enjoy reading this Newsletter as much as I enjoyed editing it!

2008 has been an exciting year with a number of changes and developments for our organization. This also means new opportunities for participation in OLAC.

First the changes: our long-time Webmaster, Sue Neumeister, is stepping down. We are grateful for her many years of service. The Executive Board appointed Teressa Keenan as the new Webmaster. Teressa began her duties in September, and will begin implementing changes recommended by the OLAC Website task force, such as a content management system and a move to electronic newsletters. In other news, Thelma Ross is our new OLAC Liaison to AMIA. Also, David Reser, LC's Liaison to OLAC, has stepped down. Janis Young of the Library of Congress Policy and Standards Division (formerly CPSO), is the new LC Liaison to OLAC. Her report to the membership is available in this issue. Finally, Greta de Groat is stepping down as the OLAC Liaison to CC:DA. Greta has provided OLAC with several years of excellent representation on this important committee-thank you Greta. Please watch for updates on this position.

Now for developments: CAPC has been working on a number of guidelines and projects this past year. CAPC was asked to join MLA in creating a best practices document for the new SlotMusic (http://www.slotmusic.org) format, before the format is even available for sale! This is a strong acknowledgement of the expertise and respect that OLAC has in the cataloging community. CAPC task force members have also successfully proposed a pre-conference on DVD cataloging at ALA Annual 2009. The pre-conference is based on the DVD cataloging guidelines and is co-sponsored by OLAC and ALCTS.

The joint OLAC-MOUG Conference was also a huge success. Nearly 300 people attended this year's conference, held in Cleveland, Ohio. The planning committee produced an excellent array of workshops and speakers, and a provocative look at RDA.

It is time to begin the work on the OLAC 2010 Conference which we hope to hold in an east coast location. If you are interested in hosting the conference, please send a proposal to host to me before ALA Midwinter.  For the proposal guidelines, please see the OLAC Handbook. (http://www.olacinc.org/handbook.html#committeeformation)

CLOSING BALANCE $13538.02

MEMBERSHIP as of October 24, 2008
Personal: 416
Institutional: 179
Total: 595

CAPC Chair, Kelley McGrath, welcomed the approximately twenty-eight attendees to the meeting and started introductions around the room. CAPC members present included Kelley McGrath, Jeannette Ho, and Heidi Frank, CAPC intern Susan Wynne, and ex-officio members Jay Weitz, and David Procházka.

2. Approval of Minutes (Kelley McGrath)

Lacking the appropriate number of CAPC members, approval of the minutes for the June 2008 CAPC Meeting held at the ALA Annual Conference <http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/sept08/capc.html> was tabled until the 2009 ALA Midwinter Meeting.

3. Announcements

Announcements: Kelley thanked Janis Young, our new LC Representative, for all the hours of hard work she has put into keeping CAPC informed and soliciting input on several issues related to form/genre headings in the past several months. She also announced that volunteers for joining CAPC are being sought at this time and encouraged anyone interested to approach her after the meeting, as well as to be aware of announcements that will go out via email.

4. Reports/Discussions

 A. CC:DA Report (Kelley McGrath for Greta de Groat)

Greta’s report focused on RDA matters and primarily the recent changes to the timeline for RDA, which include: Review of final draft of RDA (4th quarter 2008); Release of RDA (3rd quarter 2009); Testing of a live RDA database by Library of Congress with other beta test sites (4th quarter 2009); Final Review (1st or 2nd quarter 2010); Implementation (2nd or 3rd quarter 2010)

B. Form/Genre Headings (LC Representative, Janis Young)

Report to LC management:  On July 9th LC managers discussed CPSO’s report on the moving image genre/form project. The report examined the concept and utility of genre/form headings; set out principles that guide CPSO as they work on their projects; and, enumerated recommendations for the management of future projects. The managers approved the report, which is posted on the LC Web site at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/movimgenre.html. The managers also approved them moving forward with four new projects: law, music, cartography, and literature.

Moving image and radio program projects:  CPSO is continuing to work through problematic headings and has made significant progress in the past three months, during which time approximately fifty headings have been submitted for publication on weekly lists.

“Broadest terms”:  Recognizing that there is a need for hierarchy within the genre/form thesaurus, CPSO has now provided four “broadest term” headings:  Motion pictures, Television programs, Video recordings, and Radio programs.  They are to be assigned only to collections of works that are composed of multiple genres and/or forms to which a more specific heading cannot be assigned; their primary purpose is to support hierarchical browsing.  The updated genre/form heading authority records will be available in the September 30 2008 record distribution.

Scope notes: The format of the scope notes has been altered to allow for cleaner ILS displays.  The authority records for both the genre/form headings and the associated topical headings are being updated and will be available before the end of the year.

LC implementation: LC has not yet set a date for internal implementation of the moving image and radio program genre/form headings in bibliographic records. An announcement will be made when the timeline is set.

SACO pilot: Since early September two SACO libraries have been participating in a pilot to propose genre/form headings. CPSO expects to open up the proposal process for all SACO libraries in the near future.

Frequently asked questions: CPSO has posted an FAQ sheet on its Website at http://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/. It includes questions and answers ranging from the definitions of “genre” and “form” to the assignment of headings.

Any questions or comments on the genre/form projects can continue to be sent to Janis Young at jayo@loc.gov.

C. NACO/AV Funnel Report (David Procházka)

David reported that output by NACO/AV participants has increased from a year ago and that one new institution has joined the Funnel project, Kent State University.

D. DVD Guide Revision and Update Task Force (Kelley McGrath for Carolyn Walden)

A public draft of the updated Guide to Cataloging DVD and Blu-ray Discs Using AACR2r and MARC 21 was posted to the OLAC Website on August 29. The Task Force will make revisions based on the comments received and hopes to have a final version by late October.

E. Video Language Coding Best Practices Task Force (Kelley McGrath)

LC’s Network Development and MARC Standards Office did not include discussions of the proposed 257 Field in their agenda at the ALA Annual Conference in June and thus the final draft of best practices is pending until after this proposal has been discussed by MARBI.

F. Playaways Best Practices Task Force (Heidi Frank)

Heidi reported that the Playaways best practices document, “Guide to Cataloging Playaway Devices Based on AACR2r Chapters 6 and 9” is now completed and posted on the OLAC Website at <http://www.olacinc.org/capc/pubsnews.html> The Task Force will now wait for the final draft of RDA to be released in order to assess the impact of RDA’s new method of recording content and carrier on Playaway cataloging.

G. Moving Image Work-Level Records Task Force (Kelley McGrath)

Kelley announced that a draft report is available on the OLAC Website at

< http://www.olacinc.org/capc/movingimagework.html> Kelley read the Task Force’s charge as background to comments she shared. These included:

  1. Group 1 (definition and boundaries of a moving image work) and Group 2 (core, recommended, and optional elements for moving image works) have completed their tasks and put them up on the Website for review.

2. Groups 3 (operational definitions and sources for elements) and 4 (data extraction from existing MARC bibliographic records) have completed drafts which are currently being internally reviewed by the task force.

3. The definition of a “work” from RDA and as defined in FRBR is fuzzy at best, therefore the  task force is attempting to define some boundaries in order to achieve a practical approach to the situation. Identifying what a work is, and what variations of a work are, is crucial to making work-level records viable. Please see the Task Force’s report on the Website for more details.

4. Comments on the draft report are being accepted until October 10, 2008, then the Task Force will move forth with making final changes.

5. New Business

A. Kelley announced that there will be a Preconference Workshop, co-sponsored by OLAC and ALA ALCTS:CCS, on best practices for cataloging DVDs, Playaways, streaming media, etc. at the 2009 ALA Annual Conference. This preconference came about through the efforts of Julie Renee Moore, Anchalee (Joy) Panigabutra-Roberts, and Carolyn Walden, as an outgrowth of their work as members of the DVD Guide Update Task Force.

B. Lynne Bisco and Kelley McGrath will have an article published in the December issue of The Code4Lib Journal, found online at http://journal.code4lib.org/, based on the work of the Moving Image Work-Level Task Force. The article will discuss the possibility of automated extraction of FRBR work-level data from current MARC manifestation-level bibliographic records.

6. Adjournment

Kelley asked for any further questions or announcements from the floor. There were none, and the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

                        —Submitted by Paige Andrew

—reported by Stacey Beach, Southern Methodist University

Map Cataloging was presented as a full-day preconference workshop.  The focus was on original cataloging of single print maps.  A binder full of useful information and an extensive bibliography was given to each attendee.

Andrew began the workshop by defining a map and pointing out the differences between cataloging maps and cataloging monographs.  Major differences include the fixed fields for relief and projection, as well as the variable fields for scale and coordinates.  Andrew pointed out that as of August 2008, there were some changes in OCLC input standards for full-level records for cartographic materials.  Coordinates are now required if applicable in both the 255 and 034 fields.  The 007 field for maps and globes has also become required if applicable.  The 052 is now optional.  We briefly went over the chief and prescribed sources of information and what tools are available to assist map catalogers.

Titles were discussed in depth.  This is a particularly troublesome aspect of map cataloging, as often there are multiple titles on the map.  The 245 should contain the title that most precisely expresses the area and topic of the map, with preference given to a title printed within the neat line.  A title source note is often needed.  The 246 field should be used liberally for other titles on the map.  There was also discussion of choosing the main entry when several statements of responsibility are present.  Catalogers must consider AACR2 rule 21.1B2 as applies to cartographic materials.  It is helpful to bear in mind whether corporate bodies listed on the map are in the business of cartography when choosing between a corporate or personal main entry.

Considerable time was spent discussing and practicing determining scale and coordinates.  Participants were each given a Natural Scale Indicator and taught how to use this tool to estimate scale in representative fraction form when only a bar scale is on the map.  Andrew also covered how to phrase the 255 in various cases where the scale is not given.  The group practiced coding coordinates in the 255 and 034 fields.

The proper measuring of maps was discussed and practiced.  This is another particularly tricky aspect of map cataloging, as neat lines are often broken or include extraneous area, and some maps are printed on multiple sheets.

Andrew briefly discussed general notes that are commonly used in map cataloging, as well as constructing call numbers using the Library of Congress G classification schedule.

The workshop concluded with participants dividing into small groups to practice cataloging sample maps.

—reported by Susan Moore, University of Northern Iowa

Janet Swan Hill began her comments by stating that she was of the opinion that catalogers need to be like a decathlete in that we have to be good at multiple different things. Among other things, we have to know the structure of records, we have to know metadata structures and how they integrate (or not) into other systems, and we have to understand the results and impacts of what we do as reflected in the public catalog.

Hill stated that giving the conference summary is a strange task. It is necessary  to be able to gather the strings together from the various sessions and try to weave them into a cohesive whole. This is made more difficult in that sometimes one can’t stay for the whole session so at times one is dealing with partial threads. One common thread was that most sessions gave a bit of history at the beginning.

In accordance with this thread, Hill related that her early career involved map cataloging at a time when the “funny” or non-book formats often had to provide alternate ways to access the collections. With AACR1, the development of rules for non-book materials began and some other formats started to be included in the main catalog. All the formats from AACR1 are still around and catalogers still hope to learn more about how to provide access to them. Additionally, with the increase in various formats (video, electronic, and others) the “funny” formats are becoming more central.

Those of us who deal with non-book materials seem to share certain traits and characteristics. There were and are shortcomings in the rules for non-print materials so flexibility and creativity are qualities we seem to share. On the downside, we can tend to be “downtrodden elitists” and not reach out to other communities. We tend to be very organized with a love for detail.

Lists of resources to help catalog various formats was a part of every session. We have so many tools because we’re mid-stream in many different areas. And we need to remember that cataloging rules aren’t intuitive because things aren’t simple. Despite this, non-catalogers seem to want to be catalogers with things like social tagging and Websites like de.lic.ous, so those outside the field are learning about the need for consistency and uniformity.

The poster sessions tended to be graphic rather oral, the projects presented were either a small-scale or not quite finished, and the presenters often wanted closer interactions with the audience.

There are major changes looming on the horizon, not only with the standards, but in the philosophy. If we start getting more information from others, we could apply resources to provide access to materials not currently well served. The last time a major shift like this happened, cataloging departments gave up positions, which was unwise. People doing non-book cataloging have always had to be flexible, adaptable, and creative. We need to be involved in the revision of the standards. There is no point in waiting to see what develops because things still need to be done.

—reported by Ellen Symons, Queen's University Library

Margaret Kaus presented a revised version of the workshop given by Ralph Papakhian, who was unable to attend the conference. The workshop was intended for catalogers who are new to music cataloging or catalog music infrequently, so it focused on practical applications rather than concentrating on AACR2 rules and MARC coding. Kaus illustrated the discussion with many useful examples.

The focus of the workshop was published printed music. Kaus made the distinction of when a music score is a score, and when it is a book, and discussed the coding needed for each format. If the score contains music with or without words, it is coded ‘c’ for score, but a collection of songs without music, or an opera libretto without the music, would be coded ‘a’  because they are considered to be books.

Kaus then went on to discuss searching for music scores in OCLC. An efficient way to do this is by using the Publisher Number index for publisher or plate numbers. She suggested that catalogers use a double dash when searching a range of numbers, since the number itself often has a hyphen in it. She used the example in the handout, which also illustrates the use of * for truncation: 12357* finds 12357, 12357-3, 123578, 12354--12367. Plate numbers, if present, are found at the bottom of each page of the score. These numbers can end with a hyphen plus a number which is an indication of the page number, but the hyphen plus number is not always entered in the 028, making truncation particularly useful. Later in the workshop, Kaus talked about inputting the 028, telling the group that all spaces and punctuation should be transcribed, and that plate numbers come before publisher’s numbers.

There was a discussion of when to input a new record into OCLC. Examples that Kaus gave included that when the OCLC record is for the score and parts, but the cataloger only has one or the other, a new record should be made. If the cataloger has a miniature score (music shrunk down to a smaller format e.g. originally 45 cm. but published as 28 cm.), a new record can be made. She looked at when not to create a new record, and mentioned that if the item is issued in a new series a new record can be made, but is not justified if there is a change of series among issues or parts of a serial or multipart item.

The rest of the workshop concentrated on different parts of the bibliographic description. Kaus discussed title pages and titles, spending quite a bit of time looking at examples illustrating the difference between generic titles, which are the name of a type of composition (Sonata, Symphony, Concerto) and distinctive titles, which refer to a specific work by a particular composer (A Midsummer night’s dream) and how to transcribe them.  For the edition area, she discussed LCRI 5.2B2 where the cataloger is instructed to use the voice range as the edition statement.  In the dates area, Kaus emphasized LCRI 1.4F6—“Ignore copyright renewal dates for works first copyrighted before 1978.” Kaus also discussed how to determine if a score is a copy or a new edition of an earlier manifestation. A new edition would have this explicitly stated on the item, or there would be a change in the title or statement of responsibility area, edition area, the extent statement of the physical description area and the series area, and a new record would be required. However, if there is a difference in the publication/distribution area, in the printing or copyright date when a publication date is present, in the ISBN, or if the binding is different, then the item is considered to be a copy of the earlier manifestation and an existing record can be used and edited.

Although there was no time during the workshop to discuss subject headings, there was a question about the subject heading Popular music $z United States, and why there was no $v Scores.  Kaus said that this subdivision cannot be used for vocal music, popular music, country and jazz, or for scores for individual instruments. She followed up this discussion with an email explaining that Subject Cataloging Manual H1160 states “Do not use the subdivisions in List 1 [includes $v Scores] under … [h]eadings for music of particular seasons, occasions or styles, etc. that neither state nor imply medium of performance.” The examples given in H1160 include country music, which is a style similar to popular music, so that 650 _0 $a Popular music $z United States is a valid subject heading for the score of a piece of popular music. The email also included an addendum to the workshop handout that contained information about music subject headings and uniform titles, and more examples, which were a valuable addition to this informative workshop.

—reported by Mary Huismann, University of Minnesota

The Advanced Scores workshop was presented by Paul Cauthen, Assistant Music Librarian at the University of Cincinnati.

Cauthen began his presentation with a reminder of some essential music cataloging resources:  Richard Smiraglia’s Describing Music Materials, 3rd ed. (Soldier Creek Press, 1997), Michelle Koth’s Uniform Titles for Music (Scarecrow Press, 2008) and the Website “Music Cataloging at Yale.” Other helpful resources mentioned include Universal-Handbuch der Musikliteratur compiled by Franz Pazdirek (for nineteenth century music), and Types of Compositions for Use in Music Uniform Titles, 2nd ed. compiled by the Music Library Association Working Group on Types of Compositions (for uniform titles).  Cauthen also gave a brief overview of his scores cataloging “basic decision trees” for uniform titles and subject headings. The bibliography, decision trees, a compendium of stock phrases for notes, score and MARC record examples and topical index handouts are available from the conference Website.

With the “basics” out of the way, Cauthen continued the presentation with multiple examples of sticky scores cataloging problems. He used MARC records to illustrate the various solutions to these problems. Among the many situations covered in this session were handwritten scores, sets of parts for large ensembles where the number of parts acquired may vary, transcription of non-Roman alphabet information, graphical notation, differences between teaching pieces and instructive editions, orchestral excerpts, identification of editions and printings, various elements of uniform titles, proper use of the LCSH subdivisions “Songs and music” and “Musical settings,” monologues with music, edition statements for vocal music, tablature, and use of vendor records.

—reported by Nathan B. Putman, George Mason University

Mark Scharff is the Music Cataloger at the Gaylord Music Library of Washington University in St. Louis.  In a small and packed room, Scharff presented basic sound recording cataloging. He referenced two handouts: the presentation slides and the examples (which included disc labels, container information, additional notes, etc.).  Because of time constraints, Scharff stated that he would cover published compact discs containing musical works and describe the sources of information, the title proper, dates and numbers associated with sound recordings, information on performers and content notes, choice of entry, and added entries.

After the introduction, Scharff jumped into the presentation by describing the chief sources of information and stated that the term “label” was leftover from the vinyl era.  He described the places one might look for a title and in regards to collective titles stated: “We like collective titles.  They make our lives much simpler.”  Suggestions followed on what to do when there is no collective title.  His examples included steps to find the title proper with two slides showing his thought process.  These slides (titled “Omissions Testing”) listed all possible titles from an item and a step-by-step elimination process (described as taking away and giving back) with explanation until he was left with the title proper.

Before moving on to dates and numbers, Scharff briefly described the use of the GMD, stressing that you can do whatever you want in your local catalog (following local procedures, of course), but shared standards should go in the shared database.  He also described the publication area as “painful,” especially for cataloging older items.  He suggested using the internet to find publisher/manufacture information and to be aware of differences between sound recording cataloging and print cataloging.

Scharff said that the basic truth about dates and sound recordings was that sound recordings rarely or never have a publication date.  Sound recordings use a phonogram copyright date which is the copyright date of the recorded sound (proceeded by “p” in the MARC record) and may include a copyright date for liner notes, etc. (proceeded by “c”).  This is due to the separation of copyright for recorded sound and carrier/accompanying materials.  He suggested that an item having only a “c” date was really a clumsily presented phonogram date and should be presented in the MARC record with square brackets and possibly a question mark.  Scharff continued with reissues dates, dates of various formats, and composition dates and later with standard numbers such as the stock/issue/label number with their variant forms.

Next was information for a 511 note and he added that for some works (such as anthologies where different groups are responsible for each item) the performer or group may be more suited as the statement of responsibility in a 505 contents note.  Although there are no guidelines in the order of performers, Scharff suggested using score order or listing local performers first.  He stated that ISBD punctuation for the 511 (space semi-colon space) was the rule, but is no longer required.  He continues to use the “Compact disc” note stating that it is in the rules even though some people see it as unnecessary.

At this point, the time for the end of the session had arrived (and all too soon as this was an in-depth and interesting presentation).  The topics of “Choice of Entry” and “Added Entries” were breezed through.  Scharff stated that if we took anything away from these last two sections, it would be regarding named groups and named performers:  If a group or an ensemble is named, do not include the individual names of the performers with an exception for jazz ensembles.

His presentation, available online, includes detailed notes under each slide that include Scharff’s thought processes, rule numbers and descriptions, and the history of some cataloging practices.

—reported by Lucas Mak,Michigan State University Libraries

Jay Weitz began by emphasizing that the workshop would focus on the current rules, i.e. AACR2 and corresponding LCRIs, and would not try to discuss or even mention RDA (Resource Description and Access, or in Weitz’s words – “Retirement Date Arrives”). He then began the workshop with a brief overview of the history of cataloging videorecordings. According to Weitz, early rules for motion pictures actually were for “film” films, since it was the era before mass production of videorecordings. When the concept of integrated catalog came into being, AACR2 has been trying to use similar processes to catalog all materials, including motion pictures. Since intellectual responsibility is diverse for a motion picture or videorecording, it is usually entered under title.

Unlike videotapes which require a VCR to play, DVDs can be played on computers. The dominance of DVD in library video collections makes almost all catalogers able to catalog videorecordings from title frames without leaving one’s seat. Besides title frames, videodisc and videocassette labels are also considered as chief source of information. Although container is considered as a secondary source, catalogers usually get system requirement and other useful information from it.

Weitz then provided a list of criteria for making the decision on whether or not to input a new record. Besides consulting OCLC guidelines (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/input/default.shtm), Weitz also recommended Differences Between, Changes Within: Guidelines on When to Create a New Record, which was published by the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) in 2004. Weitz highlighted two criteria from the list: significantly different length and changes in publication dates. The former requires a meaningful difference in duration that reflects a different cut or version. Since it is not uncommon to see different durations being listed on different places of an item (e.g. container, label, and time read by the machine), catalogers need to pay close attention to these differences when trying to match an OCLC record against the piece in hand. For changes in publication dates, Weitz used an analogy of hardcover vs. paperback to explain. If a change in date on the container merely indicates a redesign of packaging but without significant change of the work, that change does not warrant a new record.

In response to a question on statement of responsibility, Weitz said that 245 $c normally only include producer(s), director(s) and writer(s) who have overall responsibilities for the work. However, under special circumstances, it is legitimate to put other entities in 245 $c (e.g. animator(s) for animation films). Narrator(s) or people who do voice over for animated characters should be put in 511. However, persons responsible for voiceovers of translations should be put in 508.

Since this was a joint conference of OLAC and MOUG (Music OCLC Users Group), Weitz spent a significant amount of time on music videos. “Music videos,” in the broadest sense, apply to all music moving images including but not limited to concert films, operas, and video singles. Common practices and some LCRIs for music videos are based on recommendations in the Music Library Association’s Working Group on Bibliographic Control of Music Video Material Report published in 1996. According to LCRI 21.23C, when a work with collective title has principal performer(s), the work is entered under the principal performer if there is only one, under the first named if there are two or three. The rule of three applies when there are four or more principal performers. Principal performers are “those given prominence (by wording or layout) in the chief source of information of the item being cataloged” (AACR2 21.23 A1, footnote 5). LCRI 21.23C essentially brings music video cataloging in line with sound recordings. If a work has no collective title but has principal performer(s), “popular” and “serious” idioms come into play. When principal performer(s) goes beyond mere performance or execution of a work, choice of entry follows the same decision path as in LCRI 21.23C. This category is commonly known as “popular” idiom because most music videos in this realm are popular, jazz, or rock music. On the contrary, if principal performer(s) does not go beyond mere performance or execution, a work is entered under title. Since this decision most often applies to classical and other “serious” music videos, it is commonly referred as “serious” idiom. The same consideration applies to principal performers who are corporate bodies, meaning that when a music video is entered under a corporate body, that corporate body has to be responsible to a major degree of the artistic content of the work, which is in line with AACR2 21.1B2 Category E. The Working Group emphasized that entities merely performing technical functions (e.g. producers and directors) are always not considered for choice of entry. When a music video is of mixed responsibility (e.g. videos of operas (staged or partially staged), musicals, ballets), it is entered under title because the responsibility is typically broad and diverse.

Throughout the workshop, Weitz repeatedly emphasized that catalogers should not agonize. As in Weitz’s words, “publishers of videorecordings are not well-behaved,” catalogers need to “be flexible” and “use your own judgment” since there are always ambiguities and exceptions not covered by rules or examples.

Also, I must say that the conference this year was impressive, informative, and engaging. The workshops have already been applicable to my day-to-day work as an electronic resources cataloger, and the speakers and other presentations have reminded me of how important our work really is to the patrons of our libraries.

From Lynne Haworth’s opening address, I was pleased to learn that several libraries are applying the principles for “Library 2.0” as we are at St. Louis County Library.  The “communicats,” OPACs with some user-generated data as well as standardized records, particularly seem like something that should be considered for a public library.

The RDA program presented by Glenn Patton and Heidi Hoerman helped me to understand why the new rules will not be published in Spring of 2009 as originally expected, and the question and answer panel addressed issues that I have come across at work as well, such as what to do when the English language track on a DVD has different sound quality options.

However, the training I received at the workshops has been the most beneficial for me and for my library. My position as the primary electronic resources cataloger for St. Louis County Library was created in 2007, so the cataloging of our thousands of electronic items has only just begun.  My manager and I have been reading handbooks, listservs, electronic guidelines, and whatever else we can to follow current practices as we integrate records for these new formats into our catalog, but the opportunity to learn from people in person who have been working with these resources for years has made the process much easier.

On Friday, I attended the Integrating Resources workshop with Joseph Hinger, which has direct application to my work with database records, and the Advanced Videorecordings Cataloging workshop with Jay Weitz, where I saw examples of streaming video records that we can use as models when we begin that work over the next few months.

On Saturday, I went to the Electronic Resources workshop with Bobby Bothmann, who gave a thorough overview of several types of records that I work with daily and others that I will begin soon.  That afternoon, I participated in the Advanced Sound Recordings workshop, where I learned how to catalog downloadable audiobooks and playaways.

Overall, I gained much more practical knowledge in three short days at the OLAC conference than I could have with a whole week of reading textbooks and guidelines.

I am looking forward to applying what I have learned to my work at the St. Louis County Library as we begin to catalog some of these new special formats, and I hope to make a habit of attending the OLAC Conference every two years, to continue to connect with inspiring individuals like the 2008 speakers, teachers, and participants.

Thank you for a great weekend.

Bibliographic Formats and Standards fourth edition is now available online at http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/.  The print edition is now available for ordering though the OCLC Online Service Center (http://www.oclc.org/servicecenter/default.htm).  This guide to cataloging using OCLC’s WorldCat database provides you with essential information on creating and using bibliographic records in WorldCat, including input standards and guidelines for catalogers, tagging conventions, and links to sources of related cataloging information.  A list of the major differences between the third edition and the fourth edition is available at http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/revisionhistory/edition/default.htm.   The fourth edition of Bibliographic Formats and Standards is the final edition available in print.  The fourth edition will continue to be updated online and major revisions will be announced at Abstract & Revision Notes (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/revisionhistory/default.shtm).  Updates will be made available at Bibliographic Formats and Standards (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/default.htm) in PDF format so that holders of the fourth edition can keep their print copies up-to-date.   Bibliographic Formats and Standards fourth print edition is available at $50 U.S.  Every order includes shipping to U.S. and Canada addresses.  Shipments outside the U.S. and Canada may require additional duties and taxes.  Visit the OCLC Online Service Center (http://www.oclc.org/servicecenter/default.htm) to place an order.  For more information visit the Bibliographic Formats and Standards site (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/default.htm).

The fourth edition of Bibliographic Formats and Standards, OCLC's guide to cataloging using the WorldCat database, is now part of the Cataloger's Desktop, the online cataloging documentation resource from the Library of Congress.  Bibliographic Formats and Standards is fully indexed and searchable in Cataloger's Desktop and, with Desktop's 2008 issue 4 release in November, will be linked to the service's MARC 21 Format for Biblographic Data file.

In April 2008, OCLC began using automated processing to identify, modify, and control specific types of personal name headings in WorldCat bibliographic records.  This processing is based on data used to build WorldCat Identities (http://orlabs.oclc.org/Identities/) and developed by Thom Hickey, Chief Scientist in the OCLC Office of Programs and Research.  In this phase of processing, personal name headings that consist of more than a single subfield and that match the established form or a reference in the authority record were updated (if necessary); the heading was then controlled, and the record was replaced.  Records affected by this processing can be identified by the symbol "OCLCG" in field 040 $d.  When a problem was encountered, the record was skipped and reported for manual intervention.  Dr. Hickey has posted a description of the project on his blog, Outgoing, at http://outgoing.typepad.com/outgoing/2008/04/controlling-nam.html.  On 2008 September 5, OCLC completed the first phase of the project to control more headings in WorldCat.  A total of about 25.5 million new personal name headings were controlled during this first phase.  OCLC staff are now beginning work on future phases and announcements will be distributed as plans become firm.

Developers who need to translate metadata now have access to a new demonstration service.  Developed by Senior Research Scientist, Jean Godby, and Consulting Software Engineer, Devon Smith, OCLC Crosswalk Web Service translates metadata records from one format to another and will process up to 500 records from all requests per user, per day.  With the aid of the WSDL file, users can develop a client to access the service, which is available on the OCLC ResearchWorks Web site for an undecided duration.  The service was developed to handle the increasingly complicated interoperability needs of OCLC and the greater library community.  It has been made available to the public to gather feedback on the API that developers use, the set of formats supported (specifically, what is missing from the set), as well as specific mappings, such as incorrect or missing mappings.  Developers translating metadata are invited to use OCLC Crosswalk Web Service and are encouraged to provide feedback.  For more information:

OCLC Crosswalk Web Service Demo:  http://www.oclc.org/research/researchworks/xwalk/.

OCLC Crosswalk Web Service - API:  http://xwalkdemo.oclc.org/api.html.

WSDL File:  http://xwalkdemo.oclc.org/webservices/metadata/crosswalk?wsdl.

OCLC ResearchWorks:  http://www.oclc.org/research/researchworks/default.htm.

OCLC and Recorded Books have signed an agreement under which Recorded Books eAudiobooks will continue to be available to libraries through NetLibrary, OCLC's platform for eContent.  Under the agreement, OCLC and Recorded Books will market Recorded Books eAudiobooks in North America and other regions around the world.  OCLC and Recorded Books will continue to offer eAudiobook subscriptions and will work together to deliver new products and packages to meet the needs of individual libraries and library groups.  OCLC and Recorded Books settled a contract dispute in November 2007 and agreed at that time that OCLC would market Recorded Books eAudiobooks through August 2008 and service contracts through August 2009.  The new agreement extends and expands the partnership.  In October 2008, OCLC plans to release the NetLibrary Media Center, a downloadable application that patrons and libraries will use to manage and access their content.  The new Media Center will offer personalization features and advanced search and browse capabilities.  Together, OCLC and Recorded Books provide eAudiobooks to more than 500 libraries and 16 library groups.  For more information about Recorded Books eAudiobooks from OCLC, send e-mail to libservices@oclc.org or customerservice@recordedbooks.com.