Newsletter no. 78, March 2001

Q: I am trying to catalog the new Jesse Cook music CD "Free Fall." This is a normal music CD for the most part with, if you listen to it on a CD player, 11 songs. However, like they're starting to do these days, if you put it into your CD-ROM drive on your computer, it plays 2 songs with videos that are not on it if played on the CD player. It states on the cover that "This is an enhanced CD including videos of 'Mario Takes a Walk' and 'Rattle and Burn.'" Is there an example of how to put in the 'Mario takes a Walk' and 'Rattle and Burn' so that it is easy for the patron to know just what this CD is all about? I looked at the Ricky Martin "Ricky Martin" OCLC #41417091, because it has a screen saver with it but all it said was "enhanced compact disc" which says almost nothing. Do you have any suggestions or are there any current rules you can hook me up with? Here is what I've done so far.

100 1   Cook, Jesse. 245 10 Free fall $h [sound recording] / $c Jesse Cook. 260      Milwaukee : $b Narada World, $c p2000. 300 1   sound disc : $b digital ; $c 4 3/4 in. 500      New Age guitar music ; all songs written by Jesse Cook. 500      "This is an Enhanced CD including videos of Mario Takes a Walk and Rattle and Burn." 511 0   Jesse Cook, guitars ; with additional musicians. 518      Recorded at Coach House Music, Toronto. 505 00 $t Switchback $g (4:04) -- $t Air $g (3:26) -- $t Virtue $g (4:07) -- $t Free fall $g (4:22) -- $t Paloma $g (4:10) -- $t Incantation $g (4:50) -- $t All that remains $g (3:15) -- $t On walks the night $g (6:36) -- $t Querido amigo $g (3:29) -- $t Viva $g (4:20) -- $t Fall at your feet $g (3:38). 505 00 $t Mario takes a walk -- $t Rattle and burn.

I did separate the two "hidden" songs.

A: The record you have created is a good start. Because you have already included the "Enhanced CD" quoted note with the video titles, you don't really need the second 505. What you do need is a 538 stating the system requirements for the two video tracks and a CF 006 field and CF 007 field for the computer file aspects of the disc. Although I've not examined these records closely enough to endorse all of the cataloging choices, here are a few samples of cataloging for "enhanced CDs": #45020530, #44625338, #44685581.

Q: This may be a retread, but here goes. When "Bibliographic Formats and Standards" describes circumstances that justify a new bib record, the section on 028 says, "Specific differences in numbering, except for minor variations in completeness, justify a new record." Have you ever issued any opinions on what the nature of these "minor variations" might be? My own guideline would be to heed variants that affect searchability -- in particular, added letters or numbers that would change the "mn:" search key. The particular item that triggers this question is an Acanta recording that appears to match OCLC #14584230 except that the OCLC 028 is 40.23543, while my item's label no. is 23 543 in all printed iterations (the number embossed into the vinyl is C-40.23 543, with a hyphenated alphabetical extension for side A and side B). Any guidance you are able/willing to venture is most welcome.

A: Your guideline on considering as significant any 028 differences that affect searching is generally sound, up to a point. Certainly, there are many cases where the difference in an alphabetic prefix, for instance, designates a different recording format (CD versus cassette versus LP). One also needs to be aware, as you suggest however, that different music publisher numbers may appear on different parts of the item (disc label, container, container spine, embossed in vinyl, etc.). The "minor variations in completeness" are meant to include the differences that might arise when catalogers don't notice that similar but not identical numbers appear in different places. If you have the first edition of "Music Coding and Tagging" handy, the "Claves" example on p. 70 would be one such instance where a variation that affects indexing does NOT justify a new record.

028 00 Cla D 907 $b Claves 028 00 D 907 $b Claves 500 Claves: Cla D 907 (on container: D 907).

"Minor variations" would also include those really long numbers that are strung together on, say, the container spine, but get broken into two or more separate numbers on the label. Catalogers can interpret such variations differently (as one long number or multiple separate numbers). It could also cover cases where there are both a set number and individual disc numbers, but catalogers have differed in what they included. LCRI and MCD 6.7B19 also give a few implied hints about what might count and what might not count as significant differences. Remember also that the 028 text in "When to Input a New Record" covers scores, too, where there can be similar variations in plate and publisher numbers. Several years ago, I answered a question (which might not have made it into the Q&A column) about dashed-on numbers in plate numbers, another example of a "minor variation" that doesn't count. The AACR2 definition of "plate number" says that the plate number itself "is sometimes followed by a number corresponding to the number of pages or plates." The implication here that these additional numbers are not to be considered part of the plate number proper was shored up by an old Music Cataloging Decision 5.7B19 (MCB 13:1:4, January 1982) that said this explicitly. Although the specific wording did not make it into AACR2, the current definition still implies the same thing, I believe. Both Richard Smiraglia in "Cataloging Music" 2nd edition (1986, p. 30; Richard did not carry this over to the 3rd edition, "Describing Music Materials") and I in MCAT 1st edition (p. 71; this HAS been carried over to the upcoming 2nd edition) say not to transcribe those dashed-on numbers. In the specific case that you describe, it sounds like these are distinct numbers that would justify separate records. Hope that offers at least a little guidance.

Q: Should we consider the following two publisher numbers to match one another?

028 02 289 445 185-2 $b Deutsche Grammophon and 028 00 445 185-2 $b Deutsche Grammophon

In general terms, are there "numeric prefixes" (289 in the first publisher number above) that might be associated with a particular publisher, that some catalogers might record as part of the publisher number and others not? Is absence or presence of such a "numeric prefix" a "minor variation in completeness", not justifying a new record or a "Specific difference in numbering", justifying a new record?

A: You may generally consider such differences as these to be "minor variations in completeness." Often these numbers in differing degrees of completeness appear on different parts of an item (disc label, container, container spine, accompanying material, etc.) and the differences escape the cataloger's notice. In cases such as these, a new record is not usually justified, all other things being equal.

Q: We just noticed that a bunch of our records have been modified by OCLC ("OCL" added to 040 field). The only change we were able to identify is that the degree indication in 502 fields has been changed from "D.Mus." to "D. Mus." (adding a space before "Mus."). Can this be for real? I had consciously used "D.Mus." based on the usage shown in our university's register of academic appointees. Is someone at OCLC or some program at OCLC actually searching out "D.Mus." and changing it to "D. Mus."?

A: My colleague Robert Bremer occasionally runs a macro to correct such spacings. Here is Robert's explanation. (I had asked him if he based the correction on the example in LCRI 1.7B13, which has the space between Ph. and D.): "'D. Mus.' is one of a whole group of academic degrees where spacing is routinely adjusted via a macro. However, the spacing is determined by RI 1.0C which would have you treat an abbreviation consisting of more than a single letter as if it were a distinct word, separating it with a space from preceding and succeeding words or initials. Actual usage doesn't figure into it--'Ph. D.' for example, is probably more commonly found as 'Ph.D.' in real life and is actually illustrated that way in rule 2.7B13. The spacing in all these kinds [of] academic degrees have an impact on keyword searching which has made it worthwhile to periodically run the macro to adjust them."

Q: Want to give me a "rule of thumb" when to use $e (relator term) and when to use $4 (relator code)? I am not able to locate any guidelines on their use. Most of what I know about these have been from "instinct" and from examples seen with LC. But I'm drawing a blank on a few items for which I have to create original records.

A: AACR2 allows the optional use of relator terms (officially "Designations of function") in only four cases according to 21.0D1: compiler (comp.), editor (ed.), illustrator (ill.), and translator (tr.), with occasional other terms that may be called for in specific rules. It also allows other terms derived from standard lists in specialist and archival cataloging. LCRI 21.0D1 further limits the use of these abbreviations to "ill." alone, for illustrators of children's materials. So in general, unless you're cataloging children's materials, you should not be using subfield $e or these terms in headings. These relator terms should not be confused with additions to personal name headings that serve as points of differentiation (such as terms of honor, terms of address, designations of sainthood or royalty, etc.), as are called for in rules 22.12 through 22.16 and elsewhere (and which usually go in subfield $c). On the other hand, relator codes (subfield $4) may optionally be used wherever appropriate. If your own local system cannot use them to differentiate the different roles of a particular individual (for instance, Leonard Bernstein as composer [$4 cmp] versus pianist [$4 prf or $4 itr] versus conductor [$4 cnd] versus speaker [$4 spk]), you needn't feel obligated to create them.

Q: I'm cataloging a CD of the Faroese band Spaelimenninir; it will be a new record in OCLC. The title is one word and contains an "eth," a special character that I think occurs only in Faroese and Icelandic. We can input it OK, but am wondering about searching for others who may want to find this record by title. A derived-title search will work since the "eth" is the seventh letter, but the search will be 3,,, since the title is only one word. No one will find it by keyword or title browse since the special character cannot be input in the search. We've looked in the "Diacritics and Special Characters" manual and in the LCRIs to find if there is an equivalent character(s) that we could put in a 246, but found no help. My gut says make a 246 substituting a "d" (since the "eth" kind of looks like a "d") and another 246 substituting a "th" (since I think the "eth" became a "th" in English). But that's just my gut. Any ideas?

A: According to OCLC's "Searching for Bibliographic Records" (http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9798sbr/frtoc.htm), here's how the "eth" should be treated in various search situations. In derived searches, substitute "d" (Section 4.2; p. 4:5); in title phrases scan searches, substitute "d" (Section 6; p. 6:6); in keyword searches, substitute "d" (Section 7; p. 7:11). Guidance for alternative title treatments in field 246 is provided in LCRI 21.30J, but there appears to be no specific provision for characters such as the "eth" that can be represented by the ALA Character Set. That suggests to me that no alternative 246 fields are needed when such characters are present.

Q: I'm puzzling over "When To Input a New Record" regarding the 028. My score has "UE 13641" (also an ISMN which I'll add in an 024). I find four likely matches on OCLC, all of which have "UE 13641" in the 028. But all four ALSO have a second 028, with "UE 7028." This second number is nowhere on my item. "When To Input ..." has this marvelous phrase, "Absence or presence of field 028 alone does not justify a new record." I confess I've never been clear on exactly what "absence or presence" means in practical application. It would seem to be saying that I can use one of the records in OCLC even though there is an 028 "present" which is "absent" in my score. New record or not? The four existing records are all for the same thing already. I hate to further clutter the database, but.... Thanks.

A: That "absence or presence" phrase is intended to cover a whole range of possibilities and does it vaguely. The general point is supposed to be that you shouldn't assume that simply because an existing record does not have certain information that it does not appear on the actual item, at least in certain circumstances. Or that the presence of something on your item in hand may not make it different from an existing record that does not contain that piece of information. The idea is that you need to use your judgment regarding certain differences, and that in many cases, it makes more sense to edit an existing record than to (in your phrase) "clutter the database." A good example is the presence of the ISMN on your item, where it may not appear on any existing records. Since the ISMN is a fairly recent phenomenon, you're not likely to see it on a record for something published several decades ago; except that many newer printings of such older items may well include this new standard number. If the presence or absence of an ISMN is the only significant difference between a record on line and an item in hand (and the item in hand with the ISMN does not otherwise appear to be a new edition or new publication under the definitions of AACR2), it's probably wise to simply edit the record and not add a new one. I'd lean toward the same solution in the case you describe. Hope that helps.

Q: The subdivisions for popular music, jazz, rock music, and similar headings include both geographic and chronological subdivisions. Geographic subdivisions can be assigned to these headings except for those listed under LC Subject Heading Manual H 1916.5 and the authority records for those headings that indicate this in the geographic subdivision byte of the fixed fields. The authority records established for the subject heading subdivided by decade (e.g., Popular music--1911-1920) indicate that these headings are not to be subdivided geographically, that is, this byte is blank. However, general practice seems to be that the place is included, e.g., Popular music -- France -- 1911-1920. LC Subject Heading Manual H 1916.5 gives instructions for geographic and chronological subdivision, but does not specifically indicate that the two are to be combined, nor are the decade subdivisions considered free-floating or pattern subdivisions, as far as I can tell. It makes sense that subject headings of the pattern, Popular music--1911-1920, would not be geographically subdivided, because that would violate the [Topic]--[Place]--[Date] order established for subject headings by placing the place after the date, e.g., Popular music--1911-1920--France. If the instructions in H 1916.5 are followed precisely, it would appear that two subject headings should be applied (Popular music--France and Popular music--1911-1920) to express the concept, Popular music--France--1911-1920. Is there any rule or policy that confirms the use of headings such as Popular music--France --1911-1920? There are clearly advantages for users both ways. I guess what confuses me about these headings is that the authority records for the Popular music--1911-1920 type headings do prohibit geographic subdivision.

A: When it comes to subject heading subdivisions, the philosophy that seems to work is: That which is not forbidden is permitted. As far as I can find, there's nothing in SCM H 1916.5 that says not to combine geographic and chronological subdivisions in these instances (except, by implication, those that cannot be subdivided by "United States"). In fact, Section 3 of H 1916.5 -- which reads in part "Use geographic and period subdivisions for all items to which the subdivisions apply, collections and separate works" -- seems to say it's OK. If we probe further and more generally, we find in H 1916.3, Section 3.j, "In general, geographic subdivisions are added to music subject headings according to the provisions of H 690 through H 1055." That leads me to H 860 and H 870, both of which refer to the "[topic]--[place]--[chronology]--[form]" pattern that has been adopted as widely as possible since 1992. There are numerous recent LC music bibliographic records that reflect the "[topic]--[place]--[chronology]" pattern for popular, jazz, and rock musics.

Popular music $z Hawaii $y 1991-2000. Popular instrumental music $z Norway $y 1991-2000. Popular music $z Colombia $y 1991-2000. Jazz $z Germany $y 1991-2000. Rock music $z Mexico $y 1991-2000. Rock music $z Czech Republic $y 1991-2000.

(OCLC #44702386; LCCN 00-528037) (OCLC #45486874; LCCN 00-726236) (OCLC #45487587; LCCN 99-490651) (OCLC #38496386; LCCN 97-708782) (OCLC #36982793; LCCN 97-751261) (OCLC #34115461; LCCN 96-70048)

Although the popular/jazz/rock headings subdivided chronologically prohibit further subdivision by geographic area (that is, geographic subdivisions FOLLOWING the chronological subdivision), the root headings (Popular music [sh85088865], Jazz [sh85069833], and Rock music [sh85114675]) all allow geographic subdivision directly following the heading proper but BEFORE any chronological subdivision. So, I think the rules do, in fact, allow these formulations.

Q: Is there any differentiation in the MARC record for enhanced CDs?

A: At MLA in 1999, LC promised it would issue some sort of guidelines on so-called "enhanced CDs," but I never heard anything about it after that. What I've been telling people is to include a quoted note, if appropriate, that indicates what the CD calls itself (or just a note that says "Enhanced compact disc"). A 538 field will be needed for the system requirements for the computer file aspects. A computer file 006 field will also be needed for those aspects. Whatever special features are included can be outlined either in a general note or as part of the contents, whichever makes more sense. Otherwise, the cataloging is pretty much the same as any other sound recording. There is currently no special coding for such enhanced CDs.

Q: Will UPCs ever be indexed?

A: UPCs and all other standard numbers found in field 024 ARE indexed, and have been since the September 2000 enhancements to keyword searching. Technical Bulletin 235 Rev, Keyword Searching Changes in WorldCat (http://www.oclc.org/oclc/tb/tb235/frames_man.htm) has the details. The new "standard number" (nn) index is where they are to be found.

Q: One of our paraprofessionals just came up with an interesting dilemma. She is cataloging a multi-volume set that includes pieces by various composers. In this instance it is logical to include a contents note (at least for now; we may change our mind if many more volumes come out). It's going something like this:

505 1 V. 1. Aria / Telemann ; Song / Gluck ; Piece / Handel -- V. 2. Another song / Vivaldi ; Second aria / Lully ; <and so forth>

Now, in this format, how should she input two pieces in a row by the same composer? If we were using <dash-dash> between titles ordinarily, we could use <space> ; <space> to separate the titles and then follow the second title with / <statement of responsibility>. But since we're already using the <space> ; <space> technique to separate titles (the VOLUMES are separated with <dash-dash>), that won't work. We need something to indicate one more step down in the hierarchy, to make the grouping clear.

A: There are only so many marks of punctuation, and even fewer that may be used if we are to follow AACR2 and ISBD. You may recall that LC's Deta Davis presented a workshop on contents notes several years ago [Ed. note: see Content Notes for Music], and I have incorporated her suggestions (as well as the relatively sparse guidance from AACR2, the LCRIs, and the MCDs) into the section on field 505 in the upcoming second edition of "Music Coding and Tagging." Here is an excerpt with a related example. This isn't an exact science, of course, and our goal is to emphasize clarity over strict adherence to any vague rules of ISBD punctuation.

For multipart works and multi-volume items, separate the larger designation (collective title, act of an opera, volume, etc.) from the individual titles with a period-space; volumes are set apart with a space-hyphen-hyphen-space.

505 0 v. 1. Aria, gavotte and variations, gigue / Elisabetta de Gambarini. Sonata in F major / Maria Hester Park. Lesson VI in D major / a lady -- v. 2. Sonata in A major / Marianne Martinez. Sonata in C major / Maria Hester Park.

Using your example, I've added two works by the same composer to show what that would look like.

505 1 V. 1. Aria / Telemann. Song / Gluck. Piece / Handel -- V. 2. Another song / Vivaldi. Second aria / Lully -- V. 3. First work ; Second work / Bach. First work ; Second work / Quantz.

That makes the hierarchy fairly clear without being too cluttered.

Q: During a recent training session it was mentioned that LC was no longer using 045, 047, and 048 fields. What happened to the LC guidelines that used to come with the MARC format? I seem to recall some statement about them going away, but are LC usage guidelines available somewhere? Do you know if they are still using the 033?

A: Although LC no longer inputs 045, 047, and 048 (and hasn't done so since October 1991), the specifications remain in MARC 21 documentation, as they are still valid fields. When LC uses copy cataloging from other sources, they do not remove these fields, so you will still find them in LC records (and in records created before October 1991, of course). As far as I am aware, LC continues to use field 033 when appropriate. The current edition (1999, with updates) of LC's internal "Music and Sound Recordings Online Manual" no longer has LC usage specifications for 045, 047, and 048 (that is, it simply says that LC no longer uses them), but 033 remains. I've heard of no plans to remove any of these fields from MARC 21. Lots of libraries continue to use these fields and the choice about their inclusion is entirely up to you.

Q: I have parts to a brass ensemble accompaniment. Half of the parts are 26 cm. and half of them are 28 cm. How do you notate that in the 300 field? By the way, it works like this, one of the first trumpet parts is 26 cm., the second first trumpet part is 28 cm.; the same is true with each of the other parts. We are often given permission to make photocopies of parts and this is why I have this problem.

A: Referring to AACR2 2.5D3, you could give the range of sizes as 26-28 cm. Because the size difference is relatively small, however, you could ignore it and record the size simply as 28 cm. without doing serious damage to the integrity of the record.