WinWord6 file - FTP

Document Sample
WinWord6 file - FTP Powered By Docstoc
       Joint Project of OCLC and Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen

     The Part  Whole Relationship in German and American Cataloging Data
                                         Results and suggestions

                                         Bernhard Eversberg

                                               27 June 1998

Members of task group:

Feruzan Akdogan [Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen]
Bernhard Eversberg [Universitätsbibliothek Braunschweig]
Monika Münnich [Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg / Chair, Working group for Descriptive Cataloging]
Glenn Patton [OCLC]
Barbara Tillett [Library of Congress].

1. Introduction
2. Remarks on "work" and "item"
3. Situation A : Multipart item (Manifestation of a work consists of several physical parts)
4. Situation B : Several works manifested in one physical item
5. Synthesis : A and B are essentially the same
6. Notes on authority records vs. bibliographic records
7. "Work records"? A new suggestion
8. Improvements for Germany under the status quo
9. Examples

Appendix: Links between bibliographic records

For help with this paper, we would like to thank Stefan Gradmann, who headed the first REUSE project
[now Pica, Leiden], Dierk Höppner [Universitätsbibliothek Braunschweig], Cornelia Katz
[Universitätsbibliothek Konstanz], and Emma Lee Yu [Brooklyn College Library, New York].
1. Introduction

The subject of Project REUSE+ has been to study possible improvements for the exchange of multipart
records between USMARC and German data. This was the only major problem that remained unresolved
when the first Project REUSE (1) was concluded in 1997.

The present paper summarizes the findings of this additional study and pursues two purposes:

1. to explore new concepts of dealing with PartWhole relationships (as they emerge from an IFLA
    study, "Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records" (2)), and

2. to show how exchange between German and Anglo-American agencies can benefit from these.

Proper handling of PartWhole relationships according to the IFLA study does not call for radical
innovations in either AACR or USMARC - just innovative application within these frameworks. Both
rules and format do make provisions for almost everything needed, but as it sometimes happens, there are
useful options or alternatives which have never been employed.
Whereas in principle, and within the environments of their respective rules and formats, German and
AACR catalogers could produce near-identical results, there are big differences in practice, and the biggest
are the following:

Germany:          Every part of a multipart item is described in a separate record, and these are linked to a
                  main (bibliographic) record describing the work as a whole. In shared cataloging, every
                  library can attach their exact holdings data to precisely those parts they own copies of.
                  Volume details are viewed as bibliographic data and therefore shared. This makes retrieval
                  more precise and interlibrary loan requests more predictable.

AACR:             There is either one and only one record for the whole work, with a very brief description
                  (if anything) of the parts in a contents note, or there are separate records for every part but
                  no main record for the collection - except, sometimes, an authority record in cases, for
                  example, where a uniform title was determined.
                  In the first case, holdings data in a shared database do not reflect which parts one library
                  actually has. This is established on the local level (circulation system) only. This means,
                  different from Germany, bibliographic data of volumes are not shared.

Discussion in this paper does not cover "multilevel hierarchies". Of course, as soon as one can link
something to something bigger, one can extend this to more than two levels and construct tree-like
hierarchies. On the other hand: We have been using multi-level linking for a long time in Germany but are
now phasing it out in favor of a simpler two-tier approach, which could even be implemented in USMARC
without difficulty. We try to demonstrate this in the Appendix.
That means, in Germany we are already in the process of taking big steps in paving the way for
international harmonization - without, however, giving up the essentials of record linking which we
continue to find of vital importance for our union catalogs as well as OPACs. Recent developments show
us to be on the right track: we have long since had the equivalent of linking techniques described in the
IFLA study, and also of the metadata element "DC.relation".
Statistics of USMARC data and our scrutiny of pertinent examples have confirmed once again that there is
very little that can be done to improve the results of conversion of USMARC records as they presently are
into our formats, whereas the reverse seems to be easier, and especially after we have completed the
simplification to two levels. We therefore find it appropriate, and we take the liberty to present and discuss
approaches beyond the limits of the status quo of USMARC, esp. in the light of the recent Toronto
conference and the requirements now taking shape in the metadata projects. We do hope these suggestions
will be found constructive while we are aware that not everything can possibly be implemented in the short
or even medium term. It appears very realistic, eventually, to augment USMARC data with subrecords for
parts and components converted from German data because these come universally and consistently
equipped with these additions, now lacking in USMARC. Examples are provided and a database has been
set up to demonstrate the effects.
    Suggestions for improvements are tentatively flagged in the left margin with these letters:

S   Short-term, easy improvements
M   Medium-term, not really easy
L   Longer-term, involving conceptual changes

    Except for section 8, these suggestions apply to USMARC.
    An Appendix is provided to put this study into the wider context of record linking and to explain in more
    detail some of the suggestions made in the text.

    2. Remarks on "work" and "item"

    The time seems to have finally arrived when the concept of the "work" has become a real focus of attention
    in the world of cataloging. Whatever the wording of the various suggested definitions, for example by
    Martha M. Yee (on p. 33/34 of her paper "What is a work"), they all revolve around the idea of the work
    being a "product of intellectual or artistic activity ... which can stand alone as a publication...".
    A publication is thus a physical embodiment or manifestation of a work, but it IS not itself the work.
    Cataloging has focused on "the piece in hand" for a long time, which is always a "copy of a manifestation
    of an expression of a work" (IFLA "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)" study
    (2)). The result is that catalog records (USMARC or other) always contain elements from each of these
    four levels. Asking "What's the work in this publication" often reveals that either the piece in hand is only
    a part of what one would call a work, or it may be looked upon both as self-contained AND as part of
    some bigger intellectual product, or it contains more than one product of intellectual activity, where each
    one could conceivably stand alone as a publication and sometimes does.
    Should cataloging become serious about work orientation, we have to conclude that the unwritten
    principles of "one book - one record" or even "one call-number - one record" are inadequate, as well as the
    equation "bibliographic record = main entry card". Though these may characterize the most frequent
    situation, two other situations need to be distinguished:

    A)      Multi-part items: A manifestation consists of more than one physical part, each of which may or
            may not represent a smaller work.
            Typical case: a volume in a series; it has its own title but is also part of a larger entity.

    B)      Containers: One physical item is host to (contains manifestations of) more than one work
            Typical case: Audio CD containing recordings of several pieces.

    These situations are being catered for in AACR2 chapter 13 "Analysis".
    The way these rules are translated into MARC records is still governed by card-oriented, not work-oriented
    thinking: One item - one main entry card. Additional cards (added entries) are then made as needed, using
    the appropriate fields for headings. This principle is adequate for an inventory or a shelf list, but less for a
    catalog. Not for one based on Cutter's objectives at least, or the Paris principles - and these are supposed to
    govern German rules as well as AACR2.

    To sum it up: At present, a "multi-volume item" is very often regarded by AACR2 practice as one item.
    German rules and practice always regard it as several items. "Containers" are treated as single items in
    both worlds, though there is the concept of "In" analytics in AACR2 and somewhat more elaborate rules
    have been worked out in Germany for the same purpose: to produce bibliographic records for contained
    manifestations (see 4. below).
        3. Situation A . Multipart item: Manifestation of a work consists of several physical parts

        First, some terminology : "Series" and "multivolume monographs"

        Simply stated: English and German terminology are incongruent.
        German catalogers' jargon uses "mehrbändige begrenzte Werke" (multivolume works with finite number
        of volumes) and "Serie mit Stücktiteln" (series with distinctively titled volumes), and these two categories
        receive different treatment. There is thus no exact equivalent for "series".
        Works by personal authors, since their lifetimes are all finite, are always regarded as "multipart items" in
        the finite sense and never as "series", considering that they will have a finite number of separate parts
        ("mehrbändiges begrenztes Werk") whereas AACR2 quite often treats these like series intended for
        indefinite publication, just because there is no indication as to exactly how many volumes there will
        eventually be.
        The traditional German term "mehrbändige Werke" should rather be abolished because a "work" (=
        "Werk"), in current understanding, cannot consist of volumes. The work is an abstract entity. Only a
        manifestation of a work is physical and can thus appear in several volumes.
        The term "mehrteilige Veröffentlichung" (= multipart publication) has been suggested as a more exact
        equivalent for "series", but is not established yet.
        The AACR term "collection title" for the general title (found on every part) of a series, multivolume
        monograph or serial translates as "Übergeordneter Gesamttitel" (superimposed or superordinate collective
        title). "Collection", on the other hand, cannot be translated as "Sammlung" in German, since "Sammlung"
        is reserved for collections of works by one author (one or several volumes, "collected works"), which is
        again an incongruent concept. - Lastly, the German expression for "set" is the rather uneasy "mehrbändiges
        begrenztes Werk ohne Stücktitel".

        Shortcomings of AACR2 cataloging, as we perceive them in Germany, boil down to the following, and we
        attempt to indicate possible solutions in terms of USMARC (see section 9 for examples):
        We are aware that some or all of the following, or some equivalent, have been implemented in various US
        local systems. These could immediately benefit from the corresponding upgrading of shared records.

     3.1Volumes with no titles or indistinct titles are in some cases listed in a note (MARC 505, based on AACR
        13.4) instead of just mentioned in the 300. This note, however, can contain other information like tables of
        contents of single-volume publications, and there is not sufficient formatting in the note text, nor other
        coding in other fields, to make it apparent for software that the record being converted does in fact describe
        a multipart item, and then to extract the titles or volume designations. OCLC statistics show there to be
        fewer than 2% of book records with these characteristics in their database (a 505 plus "v." in the 300); in
        Music, however, the proportion of records with a 505 is 67%!
        An analysis done in Göttingen of 4.1 million LC records shows there to be about 3.3% of book records
        containing a 300 with a "v." AND a 505, but 3.6% of book records with a "v." in the 300 and no 505. The
        latter are mostly works where the volumes carry nothing more than a numbering beside the general title. In
        Germany, these too would get subrecords - with an empty title field. This way, we can always record
        volume-related dates, paginations, series titles and numberings, ISBNs etc. on the volume level. USMARC
        data lack these volume details entirely, 505 or not.
        No German system, to the best of our knowledge, uses a technique like the 505. Instead, as stated above,
        we have linked subrecords for all parts of a multipart, whether they have a distinctive title or not.
        If the MARC world cannot warm to this idea but wants to retain the 505 (although, statistically, it is not a
        large section, and thus not a lot of work), then what can be done?
1. S    The easiest improvement appears to be the use of indicator 2: create the new values of 1 and 2 (when the
        the present values are blank or 1. These would mean: this contents note is a "volume list". Our conversion
        software could then at least create a main record and rudimentary, linked subrecords.
2. M Additionally, the formatting (subfields plus punctuation) within the 505 might be made unambiguous to
        enable software to extract volume designation, date, and pagination for every volume listed (provided
        someone has put them in). This punctuation could enable our conversion software to produce subrecords
        for every volume, with a bit more than rudimentary detail.
        AACR2 talk of "contents notes" in a rather roundabout way. Maybe the term "volume list" or "list of
        parts" or something to this effect should be introduced to denote the case of a multipart publication.
3. L    On the other hand, a more far-reaching (and thus less realistic) suggestion would be this: AACR2 leave it
          to the "cataloging agency" (13.1A) to decide if and when they want to make contents notes. Specifically,
          AACR2 do not strictly dictate a distinctive / nondistinctive title differentiation. Thus, nothing in the rules
          would stop an agency from phasing out the contents note for multiparts and introducing something
          similar to German practice. In card printouts, a contents note could still be generated by software. No rule
          change is called for, but some changes in MARC encoding and software appear necessary.
4. S      This leaves us with those cases where there is only a "v." in the 300 and no 505. Not all of these are multi-
          volume: "1 v." can occur. The simplest solution would be to have an indicator for the 300, just like for the
          505, saying "this is a multi-part item". If one could sort out the "1 v." cases, one might even generate these
          indicators retrospectively.

   3.2 Volumes with distinctive titles are sometimes cataloged under these titles (i.e., given their own, separate
       records) with a 4XX (pre AACR2) or 8XX referring to the title of the series.
       Of course, there is the occasional argument over whether a volume title is distinctive or not. Cases of
       doubt are probably more often decided pro-nondistinctive (it's less work), but the opposite is certainly
       more user-friendly.

          AND there is the whole issue of classification decisions entering into cataloging treatment decisions
          (one call-number - one record!) - in our view, a most distressing aspect because there is no way of
          knowing which alternative will have been chosen for any particular multi-part item. For countries
          not using the LC Classification this is all the more mysterious.

          To us, it appears this jagged borderline could be completely eliminated.
          Here's a new suggestion for USMARC (not for AACR2 since these allow it already):
5. M      The series as such should be considered a work in its own right and cataloged as such (like a serial record)
          and apart from the volumes.
          Presently, AACR2 do not prescribe a dedicated bibliographic record for the series (13.3). Instead, in
          USMARC, an authority record is sometimes, but not always, made for the series on the basis of 26.5.
          (More on this, since it is quite fundamental, see under 6.) German catalogers find this quite unusual. And
          annoying, because this way we never get to see the series record. Why not?
          The LC authority file has never been loaded into any German systems for reasons of incompatibility and
          incongruence, and in any case, we would have no use for the vast majority of the records.
          That means USMARC bibliographic records, when converted and merged into German systems, are
          essentially incomplete: we lack all the references contained in the authority records and particularly, we
          lack the main records for series.

       3.3The subfield $p (name of part/section of a work) in the 245 often looks like an uneasy compromise.
          The trouble with this is that software cannot determine if the part title given in $p is a distinctive one.

6. S      This technique, very rarely applied (as statistics reveal), might better be abandoned - in our view - in favor
          of 3.1 or 3.2, where $p would become $a.

7. M      Alternatively, one could restrict the use of 245 $a$p for cases where $p is non-distinctive - but then use this
          technique for all such cases, instead of the 505. That would mean: one record for every part, 245 $a the
          same for all parts, $p different. Or: one main record with the 245 $a, and linked subrecords containing only
          a 245 $p and no $a. (We are aware that $a is presently mandatory in 245.)

          In Germany, we would rather see the 245 $a$p phased out completely, in favor of the other solutions.
       Taking a closer look, the solution typically implemented in Germany consists of

      One main record for the series or multipart item (This is a bibliographic record, not an authority record!)
       This main record contains no links to the subordinate records.
       No holdings are attached to this main record.
       It is not a "work record", for every manifestation gets its own record.
      One subordinate record for every part or volume, whether it has a distinctive title or not. If the latter,
       then there is no equialent of 245 $a. These subordinate records are linked (upwards only!) to the main
       record via its IDNr. In the union catalog databases, holdings are attached to these records so as to
       accurately reflect which library has which parts of the publication.
       Volumes with non-distinctive titles just have no title field - obviously. All other fields, like date, physical
       description, names of persons related to that volume, whatever, it can all be there, in the subordinate

       Cataloging or OPAC software can always present the comprehensive work with all its parts (following the
       control numbers) but also, when a subrecord is hit, the main record can be displayed with just the
       subrecord in question.

       This solution can be coded in USMARC as well, at least in theory:
       Field 773 can be used to link a volume record to a "collection" record:

       773 $w IDNr of collection [ $a heading $t collective title ] $g volume information

       For all intents and purposes apart from this, the volume record would be a regular USMARC bibliographic
       A paper authored by Sally McCallum described this in full detail and was made available to us
       ("Multilevel descriptions in USMARC", 20 Jan 1997). But to the best of our knowledge, nobody is using
       this technique. Statistics confirm that LC has not implemented the 773.

8. M   The approach of least change for USMARC users would be to go on using 8XX for series access points,
       but then change the series authority records into bibliographic records. This would make the indexing
       easier, too. To establish real links (via control numbers) and thereby help USMARC users abroad, there's
       the possibility of introducing $w into the 8XX. As of now, USMARC generally has "textual links" only.
       (Whereas local systems do have all sorts of sophisticated linking techniques.)

9. M   Alternative solution: (see Example 2 and for the linking concept, the Appendix)
       If the above is found too difficult or unacceptable for other reasons, one may consider using the 787 tag,
       and 'p' for 2nd indicator. This way, one would have all relationships between bibliographic records
       implemented in a uniform way in just one additional field. And all multipart publications could be treated
       alike in this concept - the cumbersome contents note could be done away with altogether for multiparts.
       (Software can, of course, using the links, assemble a contents note for card output or display. Software
       could also produce an added entry out of a 787 just like from a 8XX for the structure is virtually identical
       for this purpose. This means one could even avoid redundancy.)
       Navigating the relationships (i.e., to write software for this purpose) would be made easier this way than
       with any other solution.
       Every physical part would have its own record in this solution, linked to a common main record.
       Besides, every physical part can relate to a separate work, and the main record in turn could be marked as a
       part of an even larger work.
       With the 787 being repeatable, every physical item can have links to (be a part of) more than one
       comprehensive work.
       Circulation (copy) records can then be, quite naturally, attached to the subrecord describing the physical
       part on the local level.
        4. Situation B. Containers: Several works manifested in one physical item

        The most frequent examples are in music, but festschriften or conference volumes are much the same. For
        the latter two, however, hardly any library is doing analytics for all the contributions in such volumes.
        In German, the components are called "Unselbständige Werke" (dependent works). Again, the use of the
        term "works" here is inaccurate, of course - "manifestations" would be correct.
        Everybody will know the structure of USMARC music records: (showing only those parts relevant for our

        100   1 Composer of first piece
        240   10 Uniform title of first piece
        245   10 Title of container
        505      Contents: composers and titles (not in                      authority form!)
        511      Performers and conductors, as given on                      the piece
        700   1 $aPerformer (R)
        700   1 $aConductor (R)
        700   12 $aComposer of 2nd piece $tTitle of 2nd                      piece (R)
        700   ......           3rd ...              3rd                      ...

      For the 700$a$t fields, indicator 2 is set to 2 (analytic). These 700 fields can serve for analytical added
      entries (13.2) as well as for "In" analytic entries (13.5). In practice, only the former is done, because the
      "In" analytics would be somewhat deficient:
      The big problem is, of course, that no program can determine from this which conductor and performer(s)
      belong to which of the pieces listed in the 700$a$t entries. Results of boolean searches for performer AND
      composer are therefore often misleading because the performer and composer are in fact unrelated and
      only happen to be listed on the same CD. For the same reason, keyword searches for composer and title
      word or opus number can be equally disappointing. (See example 3 below.)
10. M The simplest solution of this dilemma would be to make one separate ("analytic") record for every piece or
      "cut" on the CD, with its own 100, 240, 245, and 700s for the performer(s) and the conductor belonging to
      this piece. These analytic records would be linked (upwards) to the main record for the CD. This main
      record would not have a contents note but just a 245 and the descriptive data necessary to identify the CD.
      Example 3 below is showing the details. Rule 6.1G4 allows this, and it had been the norm for sound
      recordings under AACR1.
      Unfortunately, the existing, convoluted USMARC music records cannot be dissected by software into a
      main record plus the necessary number of analytic records, for the reason mentioned. The only possibility
      is to produce incomplete analytic records with composer/title in a 100/240, out of the 700$a$t fields, the
      other 700s and the 505 and 511 would have to remain in the main record. We went through this exercise in
      Braunschweig and produced a classical music database totaling 40.000 records arranged in this way. The
      advantage is that the anyword boolean search for composer AND title word then yields only relevant titles.
      Otherwise, when keyword indexing original USMARC, you may search for "mozart and trio", for
      example, and get a CD containing a Mozart quartet and a Beethoven trio. In terms of retrieval precision,
      which is what really matters for OPAC users, the current USMARC practice is known to be suboptimal for

11. L   A new, work oriented solution could be based on the same linking technique as in Situation A: here,
        however, the main record represents the physical volume, whereas the upward linking subrecords are
        relating to separate works, representing manifestations which in this case do not stand alone as
        publications. Holdings (or copy records in local circulation systems) would be attached to the physical
        volume, i.e. the main record. No AACR rule change would be required: Chapter 13 on analytics says
        nothing on how to implement analytic records in any format.
        In Germany, we are only just beginning to catalog components. Rules for "dependent works" have been
        worked out, at least. There is the chance now to harmonize this area of cataloging from the beginning - if
        only we can find common ground here.
        5. Synthesis: A and B are essentially the same

12. L   If we turn to a work-oriented approach, we have to focus on logical entities rather than physical items, on
        identifiable intellectual products rather than "pieces in hand". If we do that, Situations A and B become
        essentially the same. Two different solutions are no longer needed - one linking technique can cover both
        situations. And it goes almost without saying: Questions of shelving or classification should (and need) no
        longer influence cataloging decisions. Let any two (or twenty) volumes share a call number, but not a

        As early as 1989 Patrick Wilson stated that ".. the control of items is achieved at the expense of the control
        of works." ("The Second Objective" in: "The conceptual foundations of descriptive cataloging" / ed. by E.
        Svenonius. - San Diego: Academic Press, 1989, p. 8)
        To rectify this, the cost in terms of rule changes is zero (not rule usage and interpretations!), the cost in
        format implementation is rather low. The real problems are with the legacy data. No complete conversion
        is possible, whatever model one might choose. Nevertheless, the reasoning of the FRBR study very much
        supports the view presented here, while at the same time we acknowledge that there seems to be no easy
        alternative even for the long term.

        6. Notes on authority records vs. bibliographic records (see 3.A.2)

      Authority records owe their existence partly to the card concept of references, AACR2 chapter 26. Faithful
      to the letter of rule 26.5, authority records are created for series. The online equivalent of a reference can
      have more functions than a reference card, however, depending on the software.
13. M The same effect can be achieved by having a bibliographic record for the series instead of an authority
      record. (Other than names and subjects, or "works" for that matter, a series is a bibliographic entity!) This
      would overcome the awkwardness of using different fields and subfields in authority records and in
      bibliographic records (100 $t instead of 245, 643 instead of 260, etc.). Which, in the view of database
      programmers, is a problematic design feature in USMARC.
      Rule 26.5B (references for serials) is analogous to 26.5A for series. Yet, for serials with no distinctive title
      volumes, no authority record but a bibliographic record is made - for obvious reasons: there would
      otherwise be no catalog entry for the serial. Or the authority record would more or less duplicate the
      bibliographic record, only with different tagging. And of course, one cannot attach holdings to an authority
      record. Thus we have two perfectly analogous sections of a rule (26.5A/B), yet their treatment in the
      format is very different. The only reason for this was that it was the easiest way to produce the appropriate
      card headings for series volumes (100 $a$t directly provides the heading). It is not the only possible way:
      if we had a bibliographic record for the series as such, the heading could still be produced, using the
      100/240 or 100/245 of the series record. In terms of linking, the volume record would ideally contain not
      the series title but the record control number of the series record only, which is enough to produce the
      heading when needed. Where this kind of data linking is not possible, the volume record can retain exactly
      the structure it has now, with the parts of the 8XX composed out of 100 and 240/245 of the series record
      instead of the 100$a$t of the authority record.
      It should not be difficult to convert series authority records into series bibliographic records. The biggest
      difficulty will be that these records, like most authority records, are doing double duty as subject authority
      records. To have, conversely, a series title record (as bibliographic record) double up as authority record is
      questionable and would surely be rejected. To have two records of equal content but different structure to
      serve these different purposes is not sensible either.
      We are assuming here that authority records of all kinds are merged into an OPAC only if there are records
      in the OPAC to which they relate.

14. XL Probably, if it comes to a work-oriented approach, the whole dichotomy of bibliographic vs. authority
       records should be re-evaluated. Logically, authority records could be restructured to look largely like
       bibliographic records, lacking a 245 and 300 etc. That would eliminate the difference in designator
       definition between the two formats, ever so annoying for implementors. Eventually, the authority format
       could be phased out altogether. All kinds of links are made easier. Is this mere speculation?

        7. "Work records"? A new suggestion.
        A work record cannot be a bibliographic description because a work, by any definition, is not a
        bibliographic entity. (Certainly, what is not envisaged is a combined description of various manifestations
        in different physical forms.)
        It is the elusive quality of the "intellectual product" that needs to be pinpointed, to provide an anchoring
        point for new types of links (see the Appendix), that is to collocate records of manifestations in useful
        Uniform title or series authority records have aspects of what a work record might be in that they provide
        standard names (collocation points) for works. A bibliographic record for an original edition can also be
        regarded as representing the work which is manifested in it for the first time.
        This function of "representing a work" does not call for a new type of record then, but it can be made an
        additional feature of existing records.

15. L   The simplest implementation would be to define a flag, and one might suggest position 8 or 9 in the leader
        (hitherto always blank), to say "this record, among other things, represents a work". This byte would then
        make the record eligible for all those links, anchored in 787 fields in all kinds of other records (see
        Appendix), each of which, in turn, could also have this same feature of "representing a work".
        This solution appears quite alluring because, all of a sudden, one would have work records for most
        anything they would be needed for. There would be just that indicator switch to flick to make a record an
        official "work record".

        8. Improvements for Germany under the status quo

        Again: There is not much that can be done in Germany with USMARC multipart data as they presently
        are. That's why we took courage and went to these lengths to work out new suggestions.
        To dispel unrealistic expectations, let us state one important point: we do not have the option, in Germany,
        to simply adopt the USMARC ways of dealing with multipart items. That would mean massive
        restructuring in shared and local databases and an abandonment of information found helpful for searching
        and necessary for efficiency in interlibrary loan, and it would mean to destroy a high level of consistency.
        Too high a price, clearly, for implementing an anachronism.

        Series authority records have an 'a' in position 16 of the 008 fixed field and thus are easily selected.
        Position 13 even indicates whether or not the series is numbered ('a' = numbered, 'b' = unnumbered), and
        position 12 has an 'a' or 'b' for series / multipart.

16. S   Therefore, if nothing else happens, at least we can go ahead, in Germany, and restructure those records for
        our databases, i.e. turn them into series main records. Conversely, series main records produced in
        Germany could be restructured into series authority records suitable for USMARC, BUT we have no
        indicator in the main record saying, "this series is a multipart item without distinctive titles" - and would
        thus have to become a bibliographic record with a possible 505. In most cases, this fact can be derived
        from the subrecords (having no equivalent of a 245 $a then), but to program this change would not be quite
        straightforward. Does the MARC world want these records, however?
        Statistics show, unfortunately, that the number of series authority records available in USMARC is rather
        small, so the attainable benefit is not as big as one might hope. Also, these authority records are not
        normally very rich in detail. There is an alternative:
17. S   From the examples we looked at it appears we might just as well generate our main records from the
        contents of 8XX. In that case, of course, we would have to de-duplicate these main records since we would
        get a new one out of every instance of an 8XX. This would be a bit easier if the 8XX had control numbers
        (in a subfield $w) referring to the authority records.
        Both indications of "multi-partness" are statistically less frequent than we had expected, judging from
        German data. In just as many cases, around 3 % of all records, there is neither a 505 nor an 8XX but only a
        "v." in the 300. In these cases, we can convert the record into a main record, but for the subordinate
        records, there is nothing there to construct them from.
9. Examples

Much of the following is probably unrealistic for the short term - but there are no convincing short-term solutions
anyhow. This material is supposed to illustrate the suggestions made above. (All examples are from real life, but
abbreviated to the essential parts. The different versions can all be studied in the example database.)

Example 1 : for Situation A.1

(Case 1) Volumes without DISTINCTIVE titles, but with SOME titles

a) Bibliographic record for the 3-part series

001    97002147
100 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245 14$aThe art of computer programming$c[by] Donald E. Knuth.
260   $aReading, Mass. :$bAddison-Wesley Pub. Co.$c1968-
300   $a v.$billus.$c25 cm.
505 1 $av. 1. Fundamental algorithms.--v. 2. Semi-numerical
algorithms.--v. 3. Sorting and searching.

b) Suggested new 2nd indicator for the 505: (saying "this is a volume list")

505 12$av. 1. Fundamental algorithms -- v. 2. Semi-numerical
algorithms -- v. 3. Sorting and searching.

c) Improved structuring of 505:
(This would also help improve the indexing of contents notes)

505 13$vv. 1. $aFundamental algorithms.--$vv. 2. $aSemi-numerical
algorithms.--$vv. 3. $aSorting and searching.

or even a repeatable 505 (breaking up the above at every "--"):

505 13$vv. 1. $aFundamental algorithms.
505 13$vv. 2. $aSemi-numerical algorithms.
505 13$vv. 3. $aSorting and searching.

d) A much better solution: series main record + volume records
  (This is what might be produced out of German records)

001    97002147
100 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245 14$tThe art of computer programming
260   $aReading, Mass. :$bAddison-Wesley
300 1 $av. 1-
001    85028675 //r955
020   $a0201038099
100 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245 00$aFundamental algorithms /$cDonald E. Knuth
260   $aReading, Mass. :$bAddison-Wesley,$cc1968.
300   $axxi, 634 p. :$bill. ;$c24 cm.
800 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tThe art of computer programming ;$v1.

or, even better (instead of the 800)

787 1p$w(DLC) 97002147$v1

001    85028997
020   $a0201038021
100 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245 00$aSeminumerical Algorithms /$cDonald E. Knuth
260   $aReading, Mass. :$bAddison-Wesley,$cc1969.
300   $axxi, 634 p. :$bill. ;$c24 cm.
787 1p$w(DLC) 97002147$v2

001   85028998
020   $a020103803X
100 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245 00$aSorting and searching /$cDonald E. Knuth
260   $aReading, Mass. :$bAddison-Wesley,$cc1975.
300   $axi, 723 p. :$bill. ;$c24 cm.
787 1p$w(DLC) 97002147$v3

(Case 2) Volumes with NO TITLES at all (i.e., no 505)

00L cam 22002291
001 ocm00531535
008 720427m19631965maua          00010 eng
010   $a 63020717 //r65
050 0 $aQC23$b.F47
082   $a530
100 1 $aFeynman, Richard Phillips
245 14$aThe Feynman lectures on physics$c[by] Richard P. Feynman,
      Robert B. Leighton [and] Matthew Sands
260   $aReading, Mass.$bAddison-Wesley Pub. Co.$c[1963-65]
300   $a3 v.$billus.$c29 cm
500   $aVol. 2 has subtitle: The electromagnetic field; 3 has
      subtitle: Quantum mechanics
650 0$aPhysics
700 1 $aLeighton, Robert B$ejoint author
700a1 $aSands, Matthew Linzee,$ejoint author
740 1$aLectures on physics

What we would like to see here is subrecords like this, for all three volumes:

001    85028675 //r955
100 1 $aFeynman, Richard Phillips
245 00$bVol. 1. Mainly mechanics, radiation and heat
300   $ap. 1-1 - 52-12 :$bill.
787   p$w(DLC) 00531535$v1   (see 001 of main record)
Example 2 : Situation A.2 : A multipart (or series?) WITH distinctive titles

Typically, there is an 8XX in the records for the indivudual volumes. We are not quite sure whether there will be
an authority record for the series in all of these cases. But if one exists, then the pattern is the following:

a) The authority record, as it is now:

001   n 84717754
100   1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tComputers & typesetting
400   10$aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tComputers and typesetting
640   1 $aComplete in 5 v.$zCIP t.p. verso of v. A
643     $aReading, Mass.$bAddison-Wesley

b) The series main bibliographic record as replacement, as it might be:

001   n 84717754
100   1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
240   10$tComputers & typesetting
245   10$tComputers and typesetting
260     $aReading, Mass.,$bAddison-Wesley
300   1 $aComplete in 5 v.$zCIP t.p. verso of v. A

c) Two of the 5 (distinctively titled) volumes:

001      85030845 //r933
020     $a0201134373
100   1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245   14$aThe TeXbook /$cDonald E. Knuth ; illustrations by Duane Bibby.
260     $aReading, Mass. :$bAddison-Wesley,$cc1986.
300     $axii, 483 p. :$bill. ;$c24 cm.
490   1 $aComputers & typesetting ;$vA
800   1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tComputers & typesetting :$vA.

001    85028675 //r955
020   $a0201134446
100 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-
245 14$aThe METAFONTbook : a complete user's guide to typeface design with
METAFONT /$cDonald E. Knuth ; illustrations by Duane Bibby.
250   $a6th pr., rev.
260   $aReading, Mass. :$bAddison-Wesley,$cc1991.
300   $axi, 361 p. :$bill. ;$c24 cm.
490 1 $aComputers & typesetting ;$vC
800 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tComputers & typesetting :$vC.

The 800 is a textual link to the main rec (its 100 and 245 combined)

To introduce a data link, the 800 might be extended like this:

800 1 $aKnuth, Donald Ervin,$d1938-$tComputers & typesetting :$vC.
   $w(DLC) 84717754

Or, more radical again, a data link of the PartWhole category:

787 1p$w(DLC) 84717754$vC

The 800 would then be, in principle, redundant, but might still be supplied, minus the $w, for those systems that
don't understand the 787.
Example 3 : Container - Several works manifested in one physical item

On the cover of a CD recording (Sony Classical SBK 62412) we find

Mozart: Serenade, K. 388
Beethoven: Octet, Op. 103
Dvorak: Serenade, Op. 44

A typical USMARC record for it looks like this:
In our Classical Music Database you can find many examples like this. Go to index 3 and look up "zz", under this
pseudo-keyword we have arranged the examples you see above and a few more.
( )

00L njm 2200265Ia
001 ocm11129457
005 19861023
007 sdrbmm
008 840907s1996    nyu nn           0 N/A d
028 01$aSBK 62412$bSony Classical
040   $aVLY$cVLY$dPMC
245 00$aMozart: Serenade, K. 388, Beethoven: Octet, Op. 103, Dvorak:
Serenade, Op. 44$hsound recording
260   $aNew York, N.Y.$bSony Classical$cp1996
300   $a1 sound disc (71 min.)$bdigital$c4 3/4 in
500   $aCover title
505   $aSerenade for winds in C minor, K 388 / Mozart (23:01) --
      Octet for winds in E-flat major, op. 103 / Beethoven
      (21:00) -- Serenade for winds in D-minor, op. 44 / Dvorak
511 $aPinchas Zukerman, violin (1st work); Marcel Moyse (2nd
      work); Louis Moyse (3rd work)
650 0$aWind octets (Bassoons (2), clarinets (2), horns (2),
      oboes (2))
650 0$aSuites. (Instrumental ensemble)
700 1 $aZukerman, Pinchas,$d1948-$4prf
700 1 $aMoyse, Marcel,$d1889-$ecnd
700 1 $aMoyse, Louis,$d1912-$ecnd
700 12$aMozart, Wolfgang Amadeus,$d1756-1791$tSerenade$mwood-
      winds, horns (2)$nK. 384a (388)$rC minor$wnm
700 12$aBeethoven, Ludwig van$tOctet,$mwood-winds, horns
      (2),$nop. 103,$rE_ major.$hsound recording
700 12$aDvorak, Antonin$tSerenade,$mwinds and strings,$nop.
      44,$rD minor.$hsound recording
710 2 $aLos Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra
710 2 $aMarlboro Festival Octet
710 2 $aMarlboro Woodwind Ensemble

This is fine - as long as all you want is catalog cards. In OPAC searches, however, you get this record when asking
for "zukerman and beethoven" or "marlboro and mozart". This record is also brought up in opus number searches
for "mozart and 44" or "dvorak and 103". In other words, this kind of encoding cannot provide the level of
precision users expect from computer catalogs.
Work-oriented cataloging, as we envision it now, would have to split this into four records. Basically, the 700s
would be turned into linked subrecords, looking like these (note the 787 containing the link):
00L njm 2200265Iar
001 ocm12345678
007 sdrbmm
008 840907s1960    nyu nn           0 N/A d
100 1 $aMozart, Wolfgang Amadeus,$d1756-1791
240 10$aSerenade$mwood-winds, horns (2)$nK. 384a (388)$rC
787 1p$w(DLC) 11129457,1

00L njm 2200265Iar
001 ocm12345679
007 sdrbmm
008 840907s1960    nyu nn           0 N/A d
100 1 $aBeethoven, Ludwig van
240 00$aOctet,$mwood-winds, horns (2),$nop. 103,$rE_
      major.$hsound recording
787 1p$w(DLC) 11129457,2

00L njm 2200265Iar
001 ocm12345680
007 sdrbmm
008 840907s1960    nyu nn           0 N/A d
100 1 $aDvorak, Antonin
240 00$aSerenade,$mwinds and strings,$nop. 44,$rD minor.$hsound
787 1p$w(DLC) 11129457,3

These can be produced by a little program that just turns a 700 into this kind of structure if it contains a $a and a $t;
which then make up the 100 and 240, resp. The 787 contains the 001 control number of the main record plus an
appended numbering. For the example database in Braunschweig, this is exactly what we did.
What no software can do, hoewever, would be to produce subrecords with ALL the information belonging to every
single work. The first one would then have to look like this (and you find this in the database as well):

#00L njm 2200265Iar
#001 ocm12345678
#007 sdrbmm
#008 840907s1960    nyu nn           0 N/A d
#100 1 $aMozart, Wolfgang Amadeus,$d1756-1791
#240 10$aSerenade$mwood-winds, horns (2)$nK. 384a (388)$rC
#700 1 $aZukerman, Pinchas,$d1948-$4prf
#710 2 $aLos Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra
#787 1p$w(DLC) 11129457,1
Appendix: Links between bibliograpic records

The following is an updated version of part 2 of a three-part series of contributions to the subject of linking,
distributed last year to the e-mail list set up prior to the Toronto conference. Those postings were in fact an
outgrowth of REUSE.
Since then, a very new development became prominent: the "Dublin Core" metadata community has tackled the
issue of relationships between documents. One result is the list of relation terms included in the DC Simple
standard (
What is attempted here is not to theorize but to present a minimal implementation of record linking into USMARC
without so much as a single new field or subfield, yet capable of handling a wide range of logical links - including
the DC types. Hopefully, this will at least make the recent suggestions of theorists clearer (see the FRBR study),
and hopefully too, it will show that those suggestions are not extremely difficult to realize.

This implementation follows S.L. Vellucci's reasoning in her "Bibliographic relationships" paper ((2) p.28/29) and
M. Yee's outline suggestions in her paper "What is a work" ((3) p. 25/26). Both these papers were presented to the
Toronto conference.
A "conceptual schema" for a full-scale model can be found in a paper by Gregory Leazer (4).

To make things really simple, let us use just one tag to accomodate all links, namely the

787    Nonspecific relationship entry (Repeatable)

and two subfields :

 $w Record control number (target to link current record to)
 $g Relationship information (textual; optional)

All other subfields, strictly speaking, are redundant because they all contain fields from the target record pointed to
by the number in $w.
The other subfields may be used, on the other hand, in situations where the software cannot handle these links or
the target record is not present in the database. They can be inserted into exchange records, of course, which would
then look as they do now, plus the $w. This way, local software would not be affected if it is not prepared for

The subfields are defined repeatable in USMARC, but that makes matters unnecessarily complicated. It is better to
have another 787 for every link to be established.

Why 787? The 787 was first defined for serials, later made applicable for all types, and it is the closest thing that
can be found to suit the purpose in question.

Instead of using 787, one might think of extending the 700, which currently has no $w. (For German readers: the
$6 for "linkage" has nothing to do with $w, for it is meant for intra-record linking to an 880 field in an alternate
script!) It may be better, however, to restrict the 700 to additional personal name access points and take the
name/title references out of it and make true 787 work links instead, or separate analytic records altogether in the
case of contained works - but that's for Part 3.
On the other hand, the 787 could be made to look almost like a 700, except the $w, so that local systems incapable
of handling it could turn it into a 700. But to provide a 700 in addition to the 787 would be a waste.

To distinguish between the various relationships, and to make them specific, our simple model proposes the use of
indicator 2 in 787, as yet undefined. This indicator might take on the following values (and here, a full-scale model
would not have to differ): (in parentheses: DC Simple terms for relations)
0   Equivalence (facsimile or reproduction) (IsFormatOf)
1   Simultaneous edition (IsVersionOf)
2   Successive derivation, edition, version (IsVersionOf)
3   Amplification (incl. commentaries, illustrations, criticism etc.) (IsBasedOn)
4   Extraction (abridgements, condensations, excerpts)
5   Recordings of performances
6   Adaptation, modification (change of genre or medium, arrangement) (IsFormatOf)
9   Translations (IsVersionOf)

a   Accompanying relationship (supplements of any kind) (IsRequiredBy)
p   Part  whole relationship (IsPartOf)
r   Review or other descriptive relationship
s   Sequential relationship (like successive title of a serial)
u   Unspecific relationship, based on shared characteristics of other kinds

This list is based very closely on B. Tillett's taxonomy of relationships and Smiraglia's extensions (these being the
numbers 1 through 9 above; they are subcategories of Tillett's "Derivative" category which Smiraglia, by empirical
evidence, found to be too broad). (4)
Differing from Tillett and Smiraglia, the list is ordered, more or less, from very close (identity) to rather distant
(unspecific) relationships.
One might (but should one?) call this "relevance ranking". However, "relevance" is subjective, which means for
the end-user to judge, not for the database producer.
Dublin Core terms for relationships are added in parentheses. These are part of the DC Simple standard which
includes only a small list of very broad relationship terms.
What if more than one indicator applies? Like, say, for a sound recording of a part (one movement, an aria etc.)?
Then use the first in the list that applies. Thus, "5" takes precedence over "p". This appears sensible for a minimal
model. A full-size model would have additional work records for parts of a work, or it would define a repeatable
subfield instead of the (not repeatable) indicator.
Another possibility: use repeated 787s to indicate several different relationships to the same work.
Yet another suggestion: add subfields $p for Part and $v for Volume to the 787 definition and use these subfields
to relate to parts. But make $v sortable to allow for automatic arrangement of parts in correct sequences! One
might think of adding a subfield $l to 787, but the language would be redundant because of 008 and/or 041.
The physical medium or format adds another dimension which we need not discuss here. Of course, to have a work
record act as a device to collocate several editions in different media would be a welcome effect.
The OPAC or retrieval software can certainly be made to give the user a selection qualifying for media type, in
addition to everything else.

Work authority records? (see section 7)
How can this scheme be applied in cataloging, what will the OPAC user see? This at once raises the question
"Don't we need work authority records first, to serve as targets for the links in the 787?" Not necessarily. If we
have a record for the original edition of a work, then this may do double duty as a work record. If not, then a
uniform title authority record with a $f and $t can be used. For the minimal model, this is sufficient. It means there
is no need to define anything new beyond what USMARC already has.
The $t subfield is a bit ugly in that the initial article cannot be marked. To simply omit it may have been found
tolerable by many, but for work authority records it is not good enough, not for every language at least. But that's
another subject. It is being dealt with by discussion paper 106 and the subsequent proposal paper 98-16.
Instead of a name/title authority record one might think of a skeletal bibliographic record with a 100 , 240$a and
260$c to serve as work record.
Suppose, by way of example, we have three items to catalog:

[1] A translated edition of Shakespeare's "Macbeth"

[2] An English and Italian vocal score of Verdi's "Macbeth" opera
[3] A sound recording of a performance of the latter.

For the two works involved, we use these authority records as work records:

001 a888
100 1 $aShakespeare, William$d1564-1616$tMacbeth$f1605


001 a999
100 1 $aVerdi, Giuseppe$d1813-1901$tMacbeth$f1847
787 16$w888

The second has a 787 link to the first, saying it is an adaptation of it.
Our bib records will then have these core elements:

100   1 $aShakespeare, William$d1564-1616
240   10$aMacbeth.$lItalian        [redundant because of 787?]
245   10$aMacbeth
787   12$wa888                      [it is an edition of a888]
787   19$wa888                      [it is also a translation]

100   1 $aVerdi, Giuseppe$d1813-1901
240   10$tMacbeth.$sVocal score.$lEnglish & Italian
245   10$aMacbeth :$bopera in four acts
787   16$wa999                       [an arrangement of a999]

100 1 $aVerdi, Giuseppe$d1813-1901
245 10$tMacbeth$hsound recording
787 15$wa888             [it is a performance recording of a888]

The links in 787 can enable software to find and display the work records upon demand, and to collocate and
display records related to a work record in all the various ways. IOW, the 787 as defined here is all that's needed,
the rest is "only" software.
(At Braunschweig Univ. Lib., we did an implementation along these lines into the USMARC database we keep for
compatibility studies, and it was only about an hour of work.)
Just a matter of software too is the support of inputting the 787 into new and existing records. One easily envisages
a "point and click" method of making a link, and the system would have to prompt for the type of link and the
(optional) $g input (plus, probably, $v and/or $p).

Establishing links can be made a quick and easy process with this model, and it wouldn't otherwise be feasible. The
task, however, to introduce any linking model into a large database remains a daunting one. Maybe one can write
software to turn 100/240 combinations and part of the 700 $a$t fields into work authority records and new type
links, but these would have to be checked and the indicators supplied.

And what will the end-user see? That depends, as always, on the software that presents the OPAC interface. The
emerging WebPAC technology can make use of these new elements and index entries to let the user traverse the
It will be no difficulty to produce displays like this for a work record:
Verdi, Giuseppe (1813-1901)
Macbeth. 1847.

1.    [Adaptation of:] Shakespeare, William: Macbeth.
2.    Adaptations
3.    Recordings of performances

Here, 1. to 3. may be "blue" links in a WebPAC or just numbers for the user to enter in conventional OPACs.
Following link number 1, one might get (depending what types of relationships actually exist in the catalog)

Shakespeare, William (1564-1616)
Macbeth. 1605.

1.    Original edition
2.    Later editions
3.    Amplifications (incl. commentaries, illustrations, criticism etc.)
4.    Extracts (abridgements, condensations, excerpts)
5.    Recordings of performances
6.    Adaptation, modification (change of genre or medium, arrangement)
7.    Translations
8.    Other related works

Following link number 2 will bring up records like

Verdi, Giuseppe:
[Macbeth. Vocal score (English & Italian)]
Macbeth : opera in four acts
1. [Adaptation of:] Verdi, Giuseppe: [Macbeth] (1847)

Link 1 here, of course, leads back to the Verdi/Macbeth work record.

Final remark.
It has become clear that the whole matter of linking bibliographic records is one that relies on implementation into
the format, less on cataloging rules. Work records can be defined in cataloging terms alone and printed on cards as
well. Links can be defined as new kinds of "added entries", potentially replacing current added entries (cf. what
was said about 700 vs. 787 above).
For brevity, these added entries could even be called "links". How much sense all that makes for conventional
catalogs, at least in terms of feasibility, is another question. In Germany, concern for conventional catalogs is no
longer considered important in discussions of cataloging rules.

(1) REUSE Final Report, 15 July 1997. –
(2) Vellucci, Sherry L.: Bibliographic Relationships. - International Conference on the Principles and Future
Development of AACR. Toronto, Canada, October 23-25, 1997. URL:
(3) Yee, Martha: What is a Work? - International Conference on the
Principles and Future Development of AACR. Toronto, Canada, October 23-25,
1997. – URL:
(4) Leazer, Gregory: A conceptual schema for the control of bibliographic works. - In: Navigating the networks.
Proceedings of the ASIS mid-year meeting, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. (p. 115-135). - Medford, N.J.:
Learned Information Inc., 1994. ISBN 0-938734-85-7

Shared By:
liu hongmei liu hongmei
About Thank you!