Implementing the Revised AACR2 Chapter 9 for Cataloging Electronic Resources An Online Training Presentation From the Cataloging Policy Committee (CAPC)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Implementing the Revised AACR2 Chapter 9 for Cataloging Electronic Resources
An Online Training PresentationFrom the Cataloging Policy Committee
Introduction This online training presentation was developed under
the sponsorship of the Cataloging Policy Committee of the Online Audio-visual Catalogers to introduce catalogers to the new rules for describing electronic resources.
The presentation describes all of the changes in the rules and discusses
What’s the same What’s different and What this means for cataloging practice
At the end is a section which describes some changes to the rules that have not yet been published, but which will eventually have a significant impact on cataloging electronic resources.
What’s Different: The GMD [computer file] has been
changed to [electronic resource]. Note also that the GMD [interactive
multimedia], which had been temporarily accepted within the Anglo-American cataloging community without inclusion in AACR2, is no longer valid and has now been subsumed within the [electronic resource] GMD.
9.0A. Scope of Chapter 9 Electronic resource: Material (data and/or program(s))
encoded for manipulation by a "computerized device" [See below]. This material may require the use of a peripheral directly connected to a computerized device (e.g., CD-ROM drive) or a connection to a computer network (e.g., the Internet).
Computerized device: a computer or "computer-like" device used to manipulate data and/or programs. Examples include (but are not limited to): mainframe computers, computer terminals/workstations, desktop computers, laptop computers, handheld computers, tablet computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), electronic book (e-book) readers and Internet appliances.
The term should not be applied to devices containing "computerized elements." Examples include (but are not limited to): CD music players, DVD video players, DVD-Audio players, laserdisc video players, digital cameras and personal digital audio (e.g., MP3) players.
Electronic resources exist in one of two modes: Direct access
Has a physical carrier (disc/disk, cassette, cartridge) that can be described.
Must be inserted either directly into a computerized device or an accompanying peripheral.
Remote access Has no physical carrier. Access provided by use of an input-output device (e.g., a
terminal) connected to either a computer system (e.g., networked resource), or to resources located on a hard disk or other non-removable storage device.
What’s the Same: Most of the specifics, including most of
the examples of sources for formally presented evidence within an electronic resource.
The instruction that if the information in these sources varies in degree of fullness we are to prefer the source that provides the most complete information.
What’s Different: The list of examples of “formally presented
evidence” includes two new new types: home page(s) encoded metadata such as TEI headers and HTML/XML
meta tags. The “physical carrier or its labels” is now given
as one equally valid chief source instead of as an secondary alternative.
The footnote that specified “availability” of information as including “the cataloger’s access to equipment to mount or read the file” has been deleted.
Examples of “formally presented evidence” include: title screen main menus program statements initial display of information home page the file header including “Subject:” lines, encoded metadata:
TEI headers HTML/XML meta tags
the physical carrier or its labels including information that has been uncompressed, printed out, or
What does this mean for cataloging practice? The former emphasis on the “title screen” is now
gone. “Title screen” remains a valid source.
May be especially relevant for cataloging direct-access electronic resources.
But for cataloging remote-access electronic resources, catalogers are now free to use sources such as encoded metadata equally as much as a title displayed on the screen.
In some cases a different title proper may now be selected for a particular resource than would have been selected before this change.
What’s the Same: The essential meaning of the note is the
same. What’s Different:
The language is now clearer -- it defines the label as being added by the creator/ publisher, and as possibly being imprinted on the item itself. It clearly states that the item label is different from any labeling on the container.
If an item consists of multiple physical carriers, including accompanying materials, and there are multiple edition statements relating to the whole as well as to the parts of the resource, transcribe only the edition statement(s) relating to the whole resource in the edition area. Edition statements relating to parts may be given in a note.
If there is no publication, distribution, etc., date which applies to the item as a whole, and the item has multiple copyright dates which apply to various aspects of the production (e.g. programming, sound production, graphics, documentation), transcribe only the latest copyright date.
Optionally, transcribe the other dates in a note (see 9.7B7) or in a contents note (see 9.7B18)
What does this mean for cataloging practice? Although AACR2 examples are not prescriptive,
they provide guidance on note wording. “Web page” may not be a helpful example for
multi-page Web sites. The OLAC “Source of Title Note for Internet
Resources” document is a useful resource that provides further guidance on this note: http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/capc/stnir.html.
Frequently updated; last update: 2/18/97 Re-published on the Internet, Nov. 1997 Issued in part in print as: Protected areas of the
world : a review of national systems. Gland, Switzerland : IUCN, c1991-c1992; and as latest ed. Of: United Nations list of national parks and protected areas.
Originally published in print: Pierre, SD : South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish & Parks, Wildlife Division, c1991. (Report / South Dakota Division of Wildlife ; no. 91-04)
Set accompanied by one teacher’s and parent’s guide, titled: Using primary sources / by James A. Peroco; and one user’s guide. A teacher’s guide accompanies each disc.
What’s Different: Two relevant examples have been added:
Database also on CD-ROM; included in : Arctic and Antarctic regions (National Information Services Corp.)
Database and other associated documentation available in a Mac version and in four PC-compatible formats: table-delimited ASCII file; SPSS portable file; Excel file; SAS formatted file
Electronic Resource: new term; for changes to the definition, see the discussion of rule 9.0A. Scope.
Disk (Electronic resources): previously defined in a footnote in Chapter Nine.
File (Electronic resources): describes “a basic unit which electronic resources are organized and stored. Electronic resources can contain one or more files.” This is the only valid use of the term “file” that remains in AACR.
Optical disc (Electronic resources): “disc” previously described in a footnote in Chapter Nine.
Deleted terms: File name (Computer files); Multipart file
In the meantime . . . Until the revisions are published, dynamic
electronic resources need to be described using the current rules. However . . .
Dynamic electronic resources share many of the distinctive features of looseleaf publications.
Many of the basic cataloging practices described on the previous slide are also found in:
Cataloging rules for the description of looseleaf publications : with special emphasis on legal materials / by Adele Hallam. – 2nd ed. – Washington, D.C. : Office for Descriptive Cataloging, Library of Congress, 1989. Included in Cataloger’s Desktop.
Chapter 9: Area 3 Where should type and extent of the
resource be recorded? Two views: View 1: The type of resource and its extent is seldom vital
information. It should be recorded (if it is significant) in notes. The type of resource can be considered a note on the nature and scope of the resource; the extent (e.g., file size) can be recorded in a note on extent.
View 2: For certain types of material – those that are defined as a type of content (e.g., cartographic material) – the nature and extent of the content is just as important as the nature and extent of the physical carrier, and both should be recorded in Area 5.
It is not clear at this point how this issue will be resolved.
Chapter 9: Remote Resources in Area 5 A footnote to rule 9.5 currently states that a physical
description is not given for remote-access resources – presumably on the grounds that there is no physical carrier to describe.
This rule has also been questioned. The “physical description” has never been restricted to
physical characteristics: for example, sound and colour apply to the content of the resource, and duration is a measure of the extent of the content.
The current situation leads to inconsistency in whether the same information (e.g., sound, colour, accompanying material) is recorded in field 300 or in a note.
But how can you describe something that is not physical? What is the specific material designation (SMD) for a networked electronic resource?
The issue is unresolved, and discussions continue.
General Material Designations Discussions also continue on the future of the general
material designation (GMD). The current GMDs are not consistently defined
according to any logical taxonomy. It is more and more common for more than one GMD to
be applicable to a given resource. It is more and more common for the same content to be
issued in different formats; in this case, what is needed is the ability to distinguish these versions, and the GMD is not always sufficiently specific to do this.
These issues will need to be resolved if the GMD is to continue to serve its purpose as a clear and succinct identification of the type of bibliographic material being described.
A Presentation by the OLAC CAPC Chapter 9 Task Force
This online training presentation is a result of the collaborative work of the members of the Task Force: John Attig, Chair, Pennsylvania State University Ann Caldwell, Brown University Robert Freeborn, Pennsylvania State University Rebecca Lubas, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Steven Miller, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee
We wish to thank Barbara Tillett, Bob Ewald, and David Reser of the Cataloging Policy and Support Office of the Library of Congress for providing us with documentation, information about LC policies, and advice on difficult questions; and the members of OLAC’s Cataloging Policy Committee for their comments on drafts of this presentation.