(no subject)

Tribby, Mike (Mike.Tribby@quality-books.com)
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:20:31 -0700 (PDT)

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C02400.0BE7C110
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Stephanie Andrew mentioned the lack of standardization of video =
cataloging
on OCLC and LC's Archival Moving Images Cataloging Manual.=A0According =
to the
folks at LC, the Archival Moving Images Cataloging Manual isn't even a
cataloging manual, per se.=A0 It's designed for archivists, not =
catalogers.=A0
The difference manifests in things like the treatment of the title of a
television series.=A0 Take Nova, for instance.=A0 In AACR2-style =
cataloging,
"Nova" is obviously a series title (4XX field)=A0and each program =
within the
series has its own title (245 field).=A0 However, the authority record =
for
"Nova (Television program)" doesn't allow for use of the term=A0a =
series (you
can tell by the "b" in the "SRU" field in the machine readable fields). =
This
is because the authority heading was set up to agree with LC practice =
on
videos which is archival.=A0Most of=A0the records for the=A0Nova =
television
series=A0in LC's catalog have "Nova" as the title in the subfield a of =
the 245
field and the title of the individual program in the subfield p--as if =
all
the Nova programs were part of a larger whole rather than disparate =
entires
in a television series.=A0 The reason for the difference is that so far =
LC has
used the archival rules for cataloging videos. There are rumblings of
change, though. CPSO (and, therefore LC) are said to be getting so many
requests for changes in authority records pertaining to videos that =
there is
a possibility LC's video cataloging policies will be brought more into
agreement with the rules the rest of us catalog videos by.=A0 Or =
not.=A0
[DISCLAIMER:=A0 I'm in the middle of a death march through name =
authority land
right now--100+ new ones to create--so I didn't look up all the =
references
in AACR2 and LCRI for this note.=A0 I relied on my memory and am =
prepared to
be sorry for that.]
=A0
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
=A0
=A0
=A0-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Andrew [mailto:stephanie.andrew@yale.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 1:05 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Cataloguing foreign films/videos

This question points up the lack of standardization in video records on
OCLC, especially for foreign and multiple version titles.=A0 But it's =
really
no wonder that they're so wildly inconsistent.=A0 After a recent move =
from a
public library (where our first video cataloging rule was to maximize
general patron access) to a specialized academic collection (where
completeness and accuracy are paramount), I've been looking for
information.=A0 The handful of individual library video cataloging =
guidelines
I've found on the web contradict each other on important points, and =
LC's
1984 Archival Moving Images Cataloging Manual predates even VHS (never =
mind
that its main audience isn't public libraries).=A0 Posted on their site =
now (
http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/amimcovr. html) is their proposal from =
3/99
and on AMIA's site ( =
http://www.amianet.org/05_Committees/committees.html)
are their 4/99 recommendations in response.=A0 Some of the proposals =
(such as
uniform titles for films, entries for country of origin, firm =
definitions of
chief source and what constitutes a "version") would make things easier =
for
all kinds of libraries and their users.=A0 I'm sure someone on this =
list must
know more about the status of this.=A0 What's happening?=20

Stevie Andrew
Yale Film Study Center

At 08:58 AM 9/20/00 -0700, you wrote:

I'm in a bit of a disagreement with our regional library about the main
title entry for foreign films/videos. My contention is that a film or
video such as "Like Water for Chocolate" should be entered with the=20
main title entry under the English version of the name, not the Spanish
version. I won't go into all the ramifications of overdue notices, etc.
except to say that it is extremely confusing to patrons to receive one
with a foreign title that they probably couldn't even find on a video
that has been processed for American audiences - subtitled or not!
=A0This seems to have become an issue due to the fact a number of our=20
records are being superimposed by OCLC records which appear to be=20
just as inconsistent as any others I've seen.=20
=A0I don't see the similarity between a book written and published in
a foreign language to a video which has obviously been produced and
distributed for an English speaking audience.=20
=A0I'd appreciate any thoughts on this and if you have something I can
use for ammunition in my argument, that would be even better.=20
=A0If I'm way off base here, I'd like to know that too.
=A0Thanks,
=A0 Mary Gontarek
=A0 Owatonna Public Library
=A0 Owatonna, MN
=A0=20

Stephanie Andrew

Film Study Center
53 Wall Street
New Haven CT=A0 06511=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01C02400.0BE7C110
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

Stephanie Andrew mentioned the lack of standardization of video cataloging on OCLC and LC's Archival Moving Images Cataloging Manual. According to the folks at LC, the Archival Moving Images Cataloging Manual isn't even a cataloging manual, per se.  It's designed for archivists, not catalogers.  The difference manifests in things like the treatment of the title of a television series.  Take Nova, for instance.  In AACR2-style cataloging, "Nova" is obviously a series title (4XX field) and each program within the series has its own title (245 field).  However, the authority record for "Nova (Television program)" doesn't allow for use of the term a series (you can tell by the "b" in the "SRU" field in the machine readable fields). This is because the authority heading was set up to agree with LC practice on videos which is archival. Most of the records for the Nova television series in LC's catalog have "Nova" as the title in the subfield a of the 245 field and the title of the individual program in the subfield p--as if all the Nova programs were part of a larger whole rather than disparate entires in a television series.  The reason for the difference is that so far LC has used the archival rules for cataloging videos. There are rumblings of change, though. CPSO (and, therefore LC) are said to be getting so many requests for changes in authority records pertaining to videos that there is a possibility LC's video cataloging policies will be brought more into agreement with the rules the rest of us catalog videos by.  Or not.  [DISCLAIMER:  I'm in the middle of a death march through name authority land right now--100+ new ones to create--so I didn't look up all the references in AACR2 and LCRI for this note.  I relied on my memory and am prepared to be sorry for that.]
 
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Andrew [mailto:stephanie.andrew@yale.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 1:05 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Cataloguing foreign films/videos

This question points up the lack of standardization in video records on OCLC, especially for foreign and multiple version titles.  But it's really no wonder that they're so wildly inconsistent.  After a recent move from a public library (where our first video cataloging rule was to maximize general patron access) to a specialized academic collection (where completeness and accuracy are paramount), I've been looking for information.  The handful of individual library video cataloging guidelines I've found on the web contradict each other on important points, and LC's 1984 Archival Moving Images Cataloging Manual predates even VHS (never mind that its main audience isn't public libraries).  Posted on their site now (http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/amimcovr.html) is their proposal from 3/99 and on AMIA's site (http://www.amianet.org/05_Committees/committees.html) are their 4/99 recommendations in response.  Some of the proposals (such as uniform titles for films, entries for country of origin, firm definitions of chief source and what constitutes a "version") would make things easier for all kinds of libraries and their users.  I'm sure someone on this list must know more about the status of this.  What's happening?

Stevie Andrew
Yale Film Study Center


At 08:58 AM 9/20/00 -0700, you wrote:
I'm in a bit of a disagreement with our regional library about the main
title entry for foreign films/videos. My contention is that a film or
video such as "Like Water for Chocolate" should be entered with the
main title entry under the English version of the name, not the Spanish
version. I won't go into all the ramifications of overdue notices, etc.
except to say that it is extremely confusing to patrons to receive one
with a foreign title that they probably couldn't even find on a video
that has been processed for American audiences - subtitled or not!
 This seems to have become an issue due to the fact a number of our
records are being superimposed by OCLC records which appear to be
just as inconsistent as any others I've seen.
 I don't see the similarity between a book written and published in
a foreign language to a video which has obviously been produced and
distributed for an English speaking audience.
 I'd appreciate any thoughts on this and if you have something I can
use for ammunition in my argument, that would be even better.
 If I'm way off base here, I'd like to know that too.
 Thanks,
  Mary Gontarek
  Owatonna Public Library
  Owatonna, MN
 

Stephanie Andrew

Film Study Center
53 Wall Street
New Haven CT  06511
------_=_NextPart_001_01C02400.0BE7C110--