RDA by wanghonghx


									                       "How the current draft of RDA addresses cataloging of
                           reproductions, facsimiles and microforms”
                                                        by Steven A. Knowlton
            Presented at the ACLTS Continuing Resources Section Research Libraries Discussion Group, June 28, 2008, Anaheim, Calif.

Good morning. It’s a pleasure to be here in Anaheim as part of the          of lithography allowed for the production of facsimiles, and the
ProQuest contingent, but I should state at the outset of this talk that     earliest cataloging codes did address reprints and facsimiles.
the information I’ll be presenting represents my personal research
and does not reflect any positions of the ProQuest company. Allow           In the 1908 ALA code, for example, a reprint was to be entered under
me to further state that in the interest of time many concepts will be      the title of the original – unless a second title page had been added to
simplified or glossed over. I’m sure that some of those omissions           the reprint, which would necessitate an entry under the reprint title,
will be rectified during the discussion period. The topic of today’s        with the original title mentioned in a note. Although a modern
talk is the conceptual and practical aspects of cataloging microforms       catalog user would expect additional added entries for the original
and other reproductions under the proposed new cataloging code,             title, in 1908 the use of notes in a card catalog was seen as a
called Resource Description and Access, or RDA. The thinking that           reasonable accommodation for the researcher, who was expected to
motivates the most innovative sections of RDA is concerned with             exhibit enough diligence to review all the appropriate catalog entries
defining the relationships among items in the collection, and               before making a choice of which edition to read.
microforms and other reproductions fall into an interesting grey area
– they are neither a different edition in the usual sense, nor are they     Nonetheless, we are already seeing the difficulty of defining what,
simply an extra copy of an extant edition.                                  exactly, a reproduction is. If it is simply another copy of the original,
                                                                            then entry under the original title is called for. If it is a different
The potential relationships among library holdings are detailed in a        edition, then entry under the new title is appropriate. But a reprint
document entitled Functional Requirements for Bibliographic                 falls into the cracks between those categories.
Records, or FRBR. I’d like to outline the ways in which FRBR
approaches reproductions – but first I hope you’ll indulge a little trip    Over the next 70 years, four more cataloging codes were issued, and
down memory lane as we see how the problem of defining                      successive versions also addressed microforms. One constant was
reproductions in relationship to their originals has proven elusive         the rule of entry under the original title unless a separate title has
through all the cataloging codes of the twentieth century.                  been added for the reproduction. But confusion reigned when it came
                                                                            to describing the reproduction – in any given code it might be
One of the prime issues of cataloging since Anthony Panizzi first           required to enter the description for number of pages and dimensions
started to organize the British Library in the 1830’s has been how to       of the original, or to describe the microform with its own extent.
demonstrate that books having varying titles or authors have, in fact,
the same intellectual substance. For instance, the play Pygmalion is        In one particularly vexing example from 1941, the cataloger was
entered under the playwright George Bernard Shaw and the musical            required to determine whether the microform was produced as a
My Fair Lady is entered under the composers Lerner and Loewe –              commercial enterprise before applying one of two rules for
but they share essential elements of plot and character; different          describing the collation of a microform.
cataloging codes through the decades have included varying methods
of indicating this relationship to the library user – and RDA includes      The rules we currently are using are called the Anglo-American
detailed instructions to that effect.                                       Cataloging Rules, Second Edition, or AACR2. AACR was informed
                                                                            by the Paris Principles, which (as stated earlier), call for use of title
A related difficulty for catalogers has been conveying to patrons the       added entry as a means of identifying the works by a given author –
fact that the same publication may appear in the collection in various      and go further by calling for added entry when additional titles for the
versions. As a matter of fact, this issue was behind two of Charles         same work are encountered. AACR was also strongly influenced by
Cutter’s famous “Objects of the Library Catalog”: namely, a catalog         the work of Seymour Lubetzky, who stated that the purposes of the
should show what a library has by a given author, and a catalog             catalog are “1) To facilitate the location of a particular work; and 2)
should assist in the choice of a book as to its edition. Cutter felt that   To relate and bring together the works of an author and the editions
the means to achieve these objects were title entry and notes when          of a work.” Significantly, AACR2 also conforms to the International
necessary. For the most part, Cutter’s view has prevailed since –           Standard Bibliographic Description, or ISBD.
including in the Paris Principles of 1961, which established an
international standard for cataloging rules. The addition of uniform        AACR2 introduced a number of practices that make cataloging
titles has also facilitated access to publications appearing under more     microforms a more distinct practice than hitherto. The first was the
than one title.                                                             requirement to consult the “chief source of information.” In the case
                                                                            of microfilms, the cataloger must view the frame bearing the title,
The cataloging of reproductions, however, has not been blessed with         rather than relying on packing slips or box labels. A second practice
as much consistency. Microforms were not a practical commercial             – derived from the ISBD – is the introduction of the general material
enterprise during the nineteenth century. However, the development          designation immediately following the title. This practice allows the
                                                                          Knowlton, How the current draft of RDA addresses cataloging of reproductions, 2

catalog user to distinguish among print and microform editions of the        should note that RDA is still undergoing revision, so anything
same work, without referring to notes; thus is Lubetzky’s second             mentioned about the current draft is subject to change.
purpose (“To relate and bring together the works of an author and the
editions of a work”) achieved. Perhaps because the GMD improves              Because it is based on FRBR, catalogs created using RDA will
the ease of comparing editions, the physical description area no             identify in a formal manner the relationships among the items
longer shows the extent of the original, but rather describes the            cataloged. I’m sure many of you are aware of the following
microform. However, catalogers in the United States may still be             concepts, but allow me to briefly explain. In FRBR, every type of
describing the microform with information about the original, due to         data that might be entered in a catalog is considered an “entity.”
a Library of Congress Rule Interpretation to that effect.                    Entities include people, corporate bodies, concepts, objects, events
                                                                             and places. Most importantly for the cataloging of reproductions,
Facsimiles and reprints are treated similarly. They are cataloged and        entities include “products of intellectual or artistic endeavor, ” which
described according to the characteristics of the reproduction, with         consist of works, expressions, manifestations and items.
the information about the original reserved for notes. AACR2 goes a
long way toward clarifying which editions – and, of importance to the        Briefly, in FRBR, “The entities are defined as
average library patron, which formats – of a work are in the library’s
collection.                                                                  -          work (a distinct intellectual or artistic creation)
                                                                             -          expression (the intellectual or artistic realization of a work)
The ISBD, and AACR2 which reflects it, is structured to provide a
separate entry for each different format of a work – whether print,          -       manifestation (the physical embodiment of an expression of
microform, or electronic resource. Of interest to this Discussion            a work)
Group, serials and other continuing resources are to be entered
multiple times for multiple formats. This is one rule that is observed       -          item (a single exemplar of a manifestation)”
in the breach perhaps more than any other, as many libraries                 The key term is “distinct” as in the “distinct intellectual or artistic
consolidate microform, electronic and paper holdings of serials into a       creation” that is a work. It seems to be something like Justice Potter
single catalog record, with holdings shown in the notes.                     Stewart’s notion of obscenity – “I know it when I see it.” The
                                                                             difficulty lies in finding when a distinct work has been created. Walt
AACR2 was published just as early work on computer catalogs was              Whitman continually added, removed and shifted contents in various
being implemented, and experience with OPACs for the last couple             editions of Leaves of Grass – is each version a “distinct” work, or are
decades has led to a belief that the capability of computers for             they merely different expressions? FRBR recognizes the difficulty in
searching across numerous entries can allow catalogs to do more to           making these decisions, by stating, “Because the notion of a work is
help patrons ascertain which works and which editions are in a               abstract, it is difficult to define precise boundaries for the entity.”
library. This was coupled with an environment which has seen a               Furthermore, “On a practical level, the degree to which bibliographic
great increase in shared catalog records, resulting in a “re-think”          distinctions are made between variant expressions of a work will
about what a library catalog should do for its users.                        depend to some extent on the nature of the work itself, and on the
                                                                             anticipated needs of users.” (For what it’s worth, the consensus
After numerous meetings throughout the 1990’s, IFLA issued a 1998            among FRBR experts seems to be that Leaves of Grass is a “complex
document called “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic                   work”, and each of the editions is an “individual work.”
Records” or FRBR. FRBR takes the Paris Principles two steps
further and calls for a catalog to enable users to complete four tasks:      Given these considerations, the place of a microform or other
                                                                             reproduction as a FRBR entity is not immediately obvious. You’ll
                                                                             recall that earlier cataloging codes treated reproductions alternately as
           to find entities that correspond to the user’s stated search      new editions, or simply as additional copies of existing editions. In
criteria                                                                     FRBR terms, the reproduction would be either a separate expression,
           to identify an entity                                             or another manifestation of the existing expression.
           to select an entity that is appropriate to the user’s needs
                                                                             Fortunately, the committee in charge of RDA has made some
           to acquire or obtain access to the entity described
                                                                             decisions about how to approach reproductions in a FRBR catalog.
                                                                             RDA calls on the cataloger to record relationships between resources
To accomplish these tasks – and remember I said I would simplify             in one of three ways:
things – catalogs should not only state the holdings of the library          a) providing a resource identifier for the related resource. A resource
under various titles, but demonstrate in a formal way how those              identifier is a standard number, such as an ISBN.
holdings are related.                                                        b) naming the related resource in the form prescribed as the
                                                                             controlled access point representing the related work, expression,
And FRBR brings us to the heart of this talk. Since 2004, a                  manifestation, or item
committee of experts from the Anglo-American cataloging                      c) describing the related resource
community has been developing a revised cataloging code that is               The last two options, naming the related resource and describing the
based upon FRBR. This code, known as Resource Description and                related resource, are verbal in form, such as added entries or notes.
Access, or RDA, has generated considerable controversy, with some            In addition to the requirement of identifying related resources, RDA
agencies calling for a halt on development of RDA pending further            calls for “designation of the relationship,” that is, using a term from
review. However, the Joint Steering Committee insists that the               the approved list of relationship terms, such as “has supplement” or
publication of RDA will proceed as planned in 2009, so any libraries         “offprint from.”
that plan to adopt it should be prepared for the changes in store. I
                                                                            Knowlton, How the current draft of RDA addresses cataloging of reproductions, 3

And here, at last, we have reached the point of this talk: in the current      microfiche, the extent must be described as “1 microfiche (120
draft of RDA, reproductions are identified as “Related                         frames)”. However, an alternative is provided, in which the cataloger
Manifestations” of the expression being cataloged.              “Related       may record the number of original pages that were reproduced in
manifestations” can be qualified with relationship designators, such           microform or digital media.
as “Equivalent Manifestion.”
                                                                               RDA offers catalogers the options of recording the dimensions of the
To quote the rules, “An equivalent manifestation is a manifestation            carrier, whether it is the length and width of a microcard or the gauge
that embodies the                                                              of a microfilm reel. Another optional element of the descriptive
same expression of a work as the resource being described.” That is,           cataloging is “base material” – in the case of microfilm, acetate,
the particular intellectual content is exactly the same, although the          nitrate or polyester film, along with “applied material” – which is the
physical form is different.         Some examples of equivalent                emulsion applied to the film, whether diazo, silver halide, or
manifestation relationships are: "reprint of" (A manifestation that is         vesicular. Other optional elements include the generation of the film
reissued with the same content as the resource being described); and           – such as camera master, print master, service copy; the polarity; and
"facsimile" (A manifestation that exactly reproduces another                   the reduction ratio.
manifestation embodying the same expression of a work.)             A
microform copy of a printed book, then, would be described as a                If this all seems like a lot more work than cataloging microforms
“reprint of” the printed book in an RDA catalog. The current draft             under AACR2, there is one less onerous aspect to RDA. The
does not have a separate designation for microform reproductions.              requirement to consult the title frame as the chief source of
                                                                               information has been omitted; under RDA, information about
The precise manner of formatting these relationships has not been              microform or computer images may be taken from an eye-readable
established, because RDA is concerned with recording data, not                 label attached to the resource.
presenting it.                                                                 And if I may address the Continuing Resource Section specifically
                                                                               one more time – it seems that the AACR2 rule of multiple entry for
Practically speaking, how will this affect entry and description of            multiple formats will be continued; at least that is my sense from the
microforms and other reproductions? Due to the inclusion of                    decision that a change in media type will require a new description.
relationship designators, there is no longer a need to enter one
expression under the headings appropriate to another, as there was in          I hope you didn’t mind that little digression into the nitty-gritty; I’ll
some earlier catalog codes. Thus, under RDA each reproduction will             quickly summarize so we can get to the discussion period. We’ve
be entered according to the appropriate access points for title and            seen that the ill-defined status of reproductions – somewhere between
author. The additional information about equivalent manifestations             a new edition and an extra copy – has given cataloging codifiers
will allow catalog users to identify and select the expression                 difficulty through the years. However, RDA proposes to provide
appropriate to their needs.                                                    definitions and descriptions of the relationships among different
                                                                               forms of a work, and the very useful relationship designator
The burden on catalogers, then, will be two-fold. First and always, it         “equivalent manifestation” will serve many of the purposes that the
is to provide appropriate entries for the item in hand. Second,                GMD does under AACR2, while allowing for entry and description
catalogers will need to provide appropriate entries for equivalent             of a reproduction as a unique item in the collection.
manifestations of the reproductions being cataloged.           As a
reproduction, the item will necessarily contain the information                Thanks for your attention, and I’d also like to express my gratitude to
pertinent to the equivalent manifestation, so not much additional              Natalie Schulz of the Joint Steering Committee and my colleagues at
research should be required.                                                   ProQuest, Brian Goodykoontz and Karen Kaltz, for their review of
                                                                               this talk.
In keeping with practical matters, you may be interested in some of
the aspects of descriptive cataloging of microforms that RDA will
require. RDA will continue the AACR2 policy of describing the
reproduction rather than the original. Because RDA does not require
recording elements in the same order as ISBD, the general material
designation will not be required per se; however, one optional
element of description is “media type” – in the case of reproductions,
“microform” will apply to “reduced-size images not readable to the
human eye,” while “unmediated” is the media type used to describe
“content designed to be perceived directly through one or more of the
human senses without the aid of an
intermediating device,” such as facsimiles or reprints on paper.

RDA also includes a requirement to describe the “carrier type” –
which is “the format of the storage medium and housing of a carrier
in combination with the type of intermediation device required.”
Examples include “microfiche,” “microfilm reel” and “volume” of
printed material.

In terms of extent, RDA calls for description of not only the number
of units, but also subunits. For example, if the carrier type is

To top