Newsletter no. 72, May 1999

Correction: In "MOUG Newsletter" no. 71 (p. 13), a reader asked the question, "We have several cards for scores with imprints like this: 'Wien, A. Diabelli & Comp., Graben No. 1133 [1846?] Pl. no. 8389.' Does that 'Graben No.' mean anything to you? Should it be entered in the 260, or somewhere else, or not at all?" Employing a dictionary and my trusty (or is that rusty?) high school and college German, I extrapolated from the verb form of "graben" meaning "engrave" and figured it was a publisher number of some sort. Thank you to eagle eyed (and much more German-competent) reader Stephen Luttmann, Music Librarian at the University of Northern Colorado (COV), who provided the following correction: "With regard to 'Graben No. 1133': This is an address. Graben is one of the major streets in the old city; the number refers to the house number. (Napoleon had all the houses in the city numbered during his occupation; the street name is fairly irrelevant, as there would be, in this system, only one house numbered 1133 in the entire city.) The same thing happened all over Europe. The most notable example is the original cologne--i.e. from Cologne--known as 4711 because the manufacturer was in house no. 4711. Sounds like neither a 500 nor an 028/3_ is warranted." Leslie Troutman of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign also pointed out my error. Thanks to all.

Q: Those of you who have been cataloging as long as I have will recall the fairly frequent occasions when an LP would have on its two labels the names of two different performers, say, Rosa Ponselle on side one and Lily Pons on side two. No other collective title was available. In such a case, RI 6.1B1 comes into play, and the two names would be transcribed as individual titles separated by a period-space: "Rosa Ponselle. Lily Pons." Fast-forward to the CD era, and now we sometimes encounter examples where the appropriate collective title to employ consists of the names of the performers found on the label. Do we extrapolate from the LP-centric RI and separate the two names with a period-space, or should we use some other form of punctuation? In my example, the possibilities include:

Jack Teagarden's Big Eight. Pee Wee Russell's Rhythmakers Jack Teagarden's Big Eight, Pee Wee Russell's Rhythmakers Jack Teagarden's Big Eight ; Pee Wee Russell's Rhythmakers

(And where does subfield $h go?) The RI appears to need updating, but in the meantime I would appreciate any thoughts my fellow catalogers might have on the matter.

A: Extrapolation is the way to go, I think, when there is no usablecollective title anywhere (including the container and its spine). This means we are dealing with the two names as individual, non-collective titles, so they need to be separated by period space, with the GMD intervening:

245 00 Jack Teagarden's Big Eight $h [sound recording]. $b Pee Wee Russell's Rhythmakers.

Of course, you would also have a 740 for the second non-collective title.

Q: I have noticed that when viewing an OCLC record for a CD with a collection of songs on it, I have seen it recorded in the 505 field in two ways: title / performer and title (performer). Which is the correct way?

A: As you can imagine, the permutations of recording titles, composers, performers, and other information in contents notes are vast. Deta Davis of the Library of Congress devoted an entire session to contents notes at the Music OCLC Users Group annual meeting in Boston, February 1998. You can find a summary of the session in the "MOUG Newsletter" no. 70 (September 1998) p. 20-21. The short answer to your question, though, is that performers are placed in parentheses. Schematically, it looks like this:

505 0 Title / Composer (Performer) -- Title / Composer (Performer ; Performer ; Performer). 505 0 Title (Performer) -- Title (Performer ; Performer ; Performer).

Q: Are there any plans to add more searching modifiers to represent new material formats? For example:

/dvd DVD videos /cdr CD-ROM /vhs VHS video /CDs Sound CD /cas Sound cassette

I work with Special Format acquisitions, and an expanded set of search modifiers would help my work greatly.

A: As far as I am aware, there are no plans to expand the list of search modifiers. The format modifiers are at the bibliographic format level (BKS, REC, COM, VIS, SCO, MIX, SER, MAP), a level at which they are always coded and fairly reliable. Any sort of more specific qualifier would tend to be considerably less reliable, especially in excluding items that one would want to be included in a search. In most of the cases suggested, a theoretical qualifier would have to rely on coded information in the 007 field, a field that is optional in K-Level records and not always accurate even when coded. There are large numbers of records that were created before specific codes were validated for particular formats or sizes (for instance, there is no valid code that currently differentiates DVDs from other videodiscs). What might be just as useful to the questioner in many cases is to simply use keyword searching to act as a pseudo-qualifier, although even this would not be completely reliable. Adding a keyword search element for the Notes fields (for instance, "nt dvd" or "nt vhs") would catch records in which the specified designation appears in a 5XX field. Again, this won't be foolproof (for instance, many video recording records have the video format incorrectly in the 300 field rather than in the notes) and isn't terribly useful for things such as audio cassettes that don't have any distinctive indication in notes.

Q: I am taking some first trembling steps in cataloging on OCLC a few acetate discs we have in our sound archive, and was wondering if I could get you to hold my hand through some of this. I am not finding much help in the manuals. Acetate discs, as we know, are instantaneous recordings, and the one I have in hand is made of metal, coated with a lacquer compound. Check my logic, the only areas in the MARC record which would indicate the LP's "acetateness" are:

007 archival fields ($j = i and $k = a, and I threw in $l = l, because this was cut in 1967) 260 wherein I would only have a $c (because the thing isn't published)? 500 saying "Acetate disc" or something?

I don't know if you've run into the cataloging of sound recording formats other than the biggies (CD, LP, tape, even 78), but wondered if you had some ideas.

A: You seem to have figured out most of what the rules have to say (the AACR2 index under "Nonprocessed sound recordings" collects the major references together). You would use the archival subfields in 007. Only the date of the recording goes in the 260 subfield $c (AACR2 6.4C2, 6.4D4, 6.4F3). If there's anything out of the ordinary about the size, speed, and so on, you'd note that in the 300 field. Give details about the recorded event in 518 (AACR2 6.7B7), if appropriate. Definitely include a note that indicates it's an acetate disc (AACR2 6.7B10). Check for matrix numbers, especially etched into the acetate. There's an old LC record (#13760403, 86-750452/R/r91) that might be worth looking at, by way of example. Oh, and don't drop them.

Q: I sometimes find the expression of "p. 4 of cover." For example, see LC bibliographic record no. 96-126668, tag 246 ($i Each piece has on p. 4 of cover : $a 30 variatsii iz baletov russkikh khoreografov); and check out LCRI 1.6 "If an unnumbered phrase indicating a broad subject or category appears only on page 4 of cover ...." Does "p. 4 of cover" mean the back cover? Do you usually use this expression in everyday life, or is it a professional term?

A: After checking a bunch of places, I was unable to find any explicitexplanation of the "pages of cover" issue. There is LCRI Appendix D, which (in part) defines "Preliminaries": " Cover' in the list of sources means pages 1, 2, 3, and 4 of cover ...." I've always read page 1 of cover to be the front cover; page 2 of cover to be the verso (inside) of the front cover; page 3 of cover to be the inside of the back cover; and page 4 of cover to be the outside of the back cover. That does seem to be the implication of the Rule Interpretation. Like many other cataloger's terms (for instance, the limited meaning of "score" to exclude music for a solo instrument), these "page of cover" references would probably not be used in real life, where we'd likely say "back cover" or "inside of back cover."

Q: When the second indicator in the 505 field is coded "0" (for "enhanced" contents note), how does the field display in WorldCat? For example in BF&S p. 5:13, would

$t Blue like an orange / $r Michael Daugherty

display "Blue like an orange" as an additional title on WorldCat? Could Michael Daugherty, similarly, be searchable as an additional author? (This doesn't seem plausible, with his last name last.)

A: In OCLC, the 505 field displays just as it is input, with or without the "enhanced" subfielding. The titles are not included in the derived title index (that is, "3,2,2,1"), nor are the names included in the derived personal name index ("4,3,1"). Right now, only the subfield $a in the 505 is included in the Notes (nt) and Subject/Title/Contents (st) keyword indexes, but keyword indexing is currently under revision and will be expanded to include subfields $t and $r in the near future. Local systems can (theoretically) manipulate and index the "enhanced" 505s to their heart's content (if local systems can be said to have hearts). There's much more detail on all of this in OCLC's "Searching for Bibliographic Records" both in print and online at http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9798sbr/frtoc.htm.

Q: I have here a divertimento by Michael Haydn (OCLC #4312054, though it doesn't help this question much.) It was published in 1960 by (and I quote the bottom of the title page) "EB Friedrich Hofmeister Leipzig." The caption is a little different; it says "VEB Friedrich Hofmeister, Musikverlag Leipzig." The cover shows a series title, too, (Studienwerke). The plate number is 7299. Now, do I have a new edition, or a reprint, of this piece? The content and layout of the piece is exactly the same, the typeface has not changed except it is a touch smaller. This is published by (again I quote the title page) "Friedrich Hofmeister Musikverlag" and underneath it "Hofheim - Leipzig." Again the caption reads a little differently, [copyright symbol] by Friedrich Hofmeister Musikverlag, Leipzig." There is no series statement. The cover, near the bottom, says "Reprint" and right below that, "Friedrich Hofmeister." There is no plate number, but the first page of music has FH 2245. So the differences are a plate number, series versus no series, and if you believe the title page, a different place of publication, though it seems there has always been a presence in Leipzig. But the darn thing says "Reprint," there has been no change of publisher, and most importantly, the pages look exactly the same. The title and composer and even Spieldauer of the caption are even the same typeface, just a little smaller. It does seem that the plate number and form of the publisher's name at the bottom of the caption has been excised and replaced. I read fixed field DtSt in BF&S, which is fairly detailed on what is and is not a reprint, but here I'm just not sure. Can you help?

A: Given the absence of the series and the difference in numbering, I would say to input a new record. You didn't mention anything about a date on the new item, but that would also have a bearing on this question. Just to clarify the differences, you might want to include a note indicating that there was an earlier version of this item published in 1960(?) with plate number 7299 and in the series "Studienwerke." By the way, the difference in the name of the publisher seems to be a legacy of German reunification. As I recall, "VEB" (Volkseigener Betrieb, roughly "people's industry") was used in East Germany as a communist analog to the capitalist "incorporated," or something like that. (Given my luck in translating German lately, though, you might want to take this with a grain or two of salt.)

Q: What is the policy for periods after additional authors as added entries? I've seen it thousands of ways:

700 1 Fromm, Herbert, $d 1905-1995. $4 cmp OR 700 1 Fromm, Herbert, $d 1905-1995 $4 cmp OR 700 1 Fromm, Herbert. $4 cmp OR 700 1 Fromm, Herbert $4 cmp

I'm sure you get my drift. Is there any definite acceptable system that has been agreed upon?

A: Added entry headings are generally supposed to end in a period unless there is a open date at the end, in which case they end in the hyphen, or if there is some other ending punctuation (period, question mark, exclamation point, closing parenthesis or bracket, double quotation mark, according to LCRI 1.0C). The subfield $4 is an added code and not formally part of the heading proper. So, for example:

700 1 Ozawa, Seiji, $d 1935- $4 cnd [no period after open date] 700 1 Sitwell, Osbert, $d 1892-1969. $4 lbt [period after closed date] 700 1 Gedda, Nicolai. $4 prf [period after forename] 700 1 Sharp, William, $c baritone. $4 prf [period after addition to name] 700 1 Smith, E. B. $q (E. Brian) $4 cnd [no period after closing parenthesis]

The form of the personal name heading, of course, would depend on what isfound in the authority file or, if there is no authority record, what you come up with by following AACR2 Chapter 22.

Q: This question is about using the "enhanced" contents notes for 505 where there is a title and part-title. Would the proper form for this case be:

$t Title. $t Part-title / $r Composer

with each title in a separate subfield t. Or would it be proper to put both into a single subfield t

$t Title. Part-title / $r Composer.

The question came up when I used record #40393358. "Live in Italy" [sound recording].

A: As I understand it, each adjacent title element would be in its own subfield $t, so your first schematic version would be correct.

Q: Sorry that I haven't attempted to look up the search documentation on this, but I've been noticing that the presence of a "u" anywhere in the fixed field date seems to require that a search qualified by date must be qualified with "????." Take 97-703945 (#37491825), one example of gazillions. The fixed field date is "195u," but when I try to retrieve that record with a search key qualified by "195?," the search is unsuccessful. Now consider #3030895, the same (?) recording on Columbia, done with the old practice (DtSt:q; Dates 1950, 1959), which is retrievable with date qualifiers "1950" or "195?," of course. Isn't this a giant step backwards? Needless to say, I've been using "u" for as long as it's been authorized, but why hasn't the search program been reconfigured to accommodate this change in coding practice? Am I missing something here, or is this a real problem?

A: Yes, a "u" in the Fixed Field Date1 will mean that the system will not index any date at all as a qualifier for that item. (There are further details and special circumstances in "Searching for Bibliographic Records" p. 7:8 and 10:3-10:4; the document is also online at http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/ 9798sbr/frtoc.htm). When you qualify a derived or keyword search by a date with a question mark (for instance, "/195?"), you will retrieve the full range of numerals from 0 to 9 substituting for the question mark, but not records coded "195u". This is hardly an ideal situation, as we all recognize, but really, it's just an extension of the "No Date" dichotomy that existed long before we could use the "u" character. All pre-AACR2 records that had no date ("[n.d.]") have always been gathered into the "No Date" category in group displays. Ever since AACR2 required that some guess be made on at least the century, the divergent practices have made for split search results. The change in USMARC coding practice (going from "1950,1959" to "195u" for the designation "[195-?]") has meant that more records go into the "No Date" category. Before we were generally able to use the "u" in all formats, the Serials format had it and the qualifier worked the same way. I'm honestly not sure if this quirk is a legacy of its serials cataloging heritage (my colleague Robert Bremer doesn't think so), some sort of technical limitation, or what. As long as one is aware of this particular trouble spot, one should (usually) be able to fashion searches that take it into consideration.

Q: Here's a question for you about order of notes. When you have one of these "enhanced" CDs which can be played on a regular CD player or on a computer, where do you place the system requirements note? For computer software, it's one of the first notes, but that does not seem appropriate in this case. Would it be considered as another format available, 6.7B16?

A: There doesn't seem to be a really obvious place to put the 538 for an "enhanced" CD. My inclination would be to include it somewhere after the various statement of responsibility notes such as 511 (corresponding to AACR2 6.7B6) but before any notes on accompanying material (6.7B11) and certainly before a formal 505 contents note (6.7B18). I guess it might be thought of as a sort of combination edition/history (6.7B7), physical description (6.7B10), and accompanying material note, depending on what information it provides. I wouldn't agonize over its exact placement as long as it's snuggled in there somewhere between the 511 and 505. By the way, the Library of Congress announced at the 1999 MOUG/MLA meetings in Los Angeles that the Cataloging Policy and Support Office was soon going to distribute its guidelines on cataloging "enhanced" CDs, so that's something to keep your eyes open for.