Cataloging glossary for students and novices

If the terminology of cataloging is causing confusion there is a wonderful online glossary in .pdf format. A wonderful resource for students and novices.

‘Insurance’ subject headings have changed!

All insurance subject headings have recently been changed from indirect to DIRECT ORDER.

For instance:

Insurance, automobile is now Automobile insurance

Insurance, health  is now Health insurance

Insurance, fire is now Fire insurance

Insurance, home is now Home insurance

For a full listing of changed insurance headings view Cataloging Service Bulletin #122

New genre headings

Every day I try to do a wee bit of database maintenance, but with a backlog of work this is not always possible.

Since I catalogue the non-feature DVDs for my library, today I updated some of the new genre headings.

Travelogues (Motion pictures, television, etc.) has been broken up into two separate headings:

Travelogues (Motion pictures) AND

Travelogues (Television programs)

Historical reenactments has been broken up into two separate headings:

Historical reenactments (Motion pictures) AND

Historical reenactments (Television programs)

Some more recent genre headings:

Filmed operas

Filmed musicals

Filmed ballets

Filmed sports events

Filmed lectures

Filmed speeches

For the novice cataloguers out there the thing to remember about genres is this:

655  GENRE headings describe WHAT IT IS (places it in a category)

650 Regular subject headings describe WHAT IT IS ABOUT

Thus you could have a work which relates the history of the horror movie over the last 50 years. This work would get a 650  Horror films because it is ABOUT horror films.

The movie “The exorcist” would get a 655 Horror films because it IS a horror film.

The same logic applies to $x subject sub-divisions vs. $v form sub-divisions.

If the sub-division describes the  ABOUTNESS of a topic it goes in a $x

If the sub-division describes the IS/FORM of the work it goes in a $v

Examples:

Catholic Church$xPeriodicals$xHistory

(a work ABOUT the history of Catholic magazines)

Catholic Church$xHistory$vPeriodicals

(IS a magazine about the history of the Catholic Church)

Guide to DVD and Blu-ray cataloguing

There is a final draft of the Guide to Cataloging DVD and Blu-ray discs using AACR2R and Marc 21 available in .pdf format for free download.

http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/DVD_guide_final.pdf

I understand that each library probably has its own procedures for cataloguing these media, but it is always helpful to see how others handle things.  And as a wise cataloguing teacher once told me “You have to know the rules, before you can break them”.  Not that we would break them exactly… sometimes just bend them to fit our catalogue and to meet the needs of our patrons.

My library does not yet catalogue Blu-ray discs.  That is not to say it will never happen, just that due to the nature of the disc, because it requires specifically designed equipment to play, it is not a common enough feature in most homes in our catchment area.

An explanation of Blu-ray from the guide states:       Blu-ray uses a blue-violet laser that has a shorter wavelength than the standard DVD’s red laser. This shorter wavelength allows data to be stored in a smaller space, fitting more data on the disc itself. The dual layer Blu-ray disc can contain over 9 hours of high-definition video or about 23 hours of standard-definition video on a 50GB disc.

The Rule of Three

Anyone who has ever taken a cataloguing course will recognize the term “The Rule of Three”.  But… does it really matter anymore?  Shock ! Horror!  A cataloguer who is questioning the validity of a cataloguing rule!

In cases where more than three authors share responsibility for the creation of a work, the  Rule of Three dictates that the catalog should provide added entry under only the first author named. This practice discriminates unfairly against the authors whose names are not included and hampers those patrons who only recall the name of one or more of those authors overlooked by the catalogue.

card catalogue drawer

The rule was created in the days of the card catalogue.  Remember the lovely oak ones with the tiny little index cards.  To cut down on the amount of cards (and the amount of typing) it made sound sense to go with “The rule of three”.

Now however, with the online catalogue, it makes even more sense to forget the rule.  If a work has six authors why not trace all six?  It is simply a matter of entering the names in 700 tags.  Be honest, if you helped to write a book and your name was entered fifth, wouldn’t you want to be able to access the work by your name?

The Library of Congress is currently reviewing the ‘rule of three’.  There is a proposal to make the limitations imposed by the rule ‘optional‘.

Rule 21.29D currently allows for additional added entries to be made if required by cataloguers.

Making the ‘Rule of Three’ optional for bibliographic description increase access and is more designed for today’s digital environment.

The amended Rule 1.1F5 would read:

1.1F5  If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of such persons or bodies.  Indicate the omission by the mark of omission [... et al.] Optionally, transcribe statements of responsibility appearing in the chief source of information in full, regardless of the number of persons or corporate bodies named.

I have chosen to exercise the option.  Have you?  I am interested to hear how other cataloguers are dealing with this issue.

Cataloging Service Bulletins

Did you know that you have free online access to the Cataloging Service Bulletins put out by the Cataloging Distribution Service of the Library of Congress?  They are in .pdf format.  You can even download the most recent issue Number 123, Spring 2009!

Bulletins from 1994- present can be found at this link:  http://www.loc.gov/cds/PDFdownloads/csb/index.html

Access points for graphic novels

From my cataloguing courses I always understood that if a work had an artist and an author the cataloguer should make a main entry (tag 100) for the person chiefly responsible for the work.  The other person would be entered as an added entry (tag 700).

For instance if you are cataloguing a children’s storybook that has illustrations, the author would get the main entry and the illustrator the added entry.

However… in the case of graphic novels, the illustrations make up the bulk of the work.   The artist’s contribution to graphic novels overshadows that of the writer.

My personal opinion is that when dealing with graphic novels one should be consistent and always use the artist as the main entry, providing an added entry for the author of the text.  Anyone searching for copy lately will realize that there seems to be no consistency whatsoever.  Some give the main entry to the author, some to the artist.  To my horror, I have found copy that names only the author and the artist is not even given an added entry.  This practice is in direct violation of AACR2 rule 21.30K2.

To further muddy the argument, we must remember Rule 21.24 Collaboration between Artist and Writer.  Rule 21.24 states that ‘collaboration’ in this case means that the artist and the author have worked jointly to produce the work.  The rule states that if collaboration exists then the main entry is entered under the person named first on the title page, with an added entry provided for the second named person.  A further obstacle to consistent cataloguing is that many graphic novels do not have title pages, and often the publisher gets very creative with the cover.  Another question that arises is What sort of access is given to pencillers, colorists and letterers?  I consider the pencillers to be  the artists, while the colorists and letterers play an inferior role.

I would be very interested in hearing how others face these cataloguing challenges.

Remember the cataloguer’s mantra…. I will be consistent, I will be consistent, I will be consistent, I will be consistent…

Works with collective titles

Lately I have noticed that many libraries  have begun to ignore AACR2 rule 21.7BI regarding works with collective titles.

If like me you chose to follow rule 21.7B1 then remember:

Use title main entry if work has 3 or more authors AND has a collective title.

Use author main entry if work has 3 or less authors and does NOT have a collective title.