Report /
10/11/2013 /
Task Group Members:
Charlene Chou (Columbia) Co-chair
Stephen Early (CRL) Co-chair
Amy Bailey (ProQuest)
Robert Bremer (OCLC)
Renee Chin (UCSan Diego)
Les Hawkins (LC)
Stephen Kharfen (GPO)
Kevin Randall (Northwestern)
Jodi Williamschen (SkyRiver)
Table of Contents
Introduction
”RDA as Currently Interpreted” Approach
RDA Analytical Approach to Cataloging Microform Reproductions
Other approaches to Cataloging Microform Reproductions
RDA Rule Revision Required
Modified USNP
“Status Quo:” retain 533 and allow LCRI 11 practice while MARC still in use
A Provider-Neutral Model for Cataloging Microform Reproductions
Non-Microform Reproductions
LC-PCC PS for 27.1.1.3: Summary of revision proposals
Further Research
Bibliographic Description Beyond MARC
ILS Considerations
Appendix A: RDA Implementation Dependencies
Appendix B: Revision of RDA: Frequently Asked Questions
Appendix C: Linked Data and Provider-neutral Record Examples
Appendix D: WEM analysis
Appendix D1: Rwanda Newsline WEM entity illustration
Appendix D2: American Annals of Education (1830-1839) WEM entity illustration
Appendix D3: "Manifestation family" Thought Experiment
Appendix E: Reproductions: Decision process flowchart
Appendix F: Monograph examples
Introduction
Instructions in RDA for the description of reproductions, facsimiles, reprints and other types of reproductions follow the general guidance of RDA 1.11: Record data relating to the facsimile in the appropriate RDA element, and record data relating to the original manifestation “as an element of a related work or related manifestation as applicable.” The resulting MARC 21 description of a microform reflects the manifestation in elements such as title proper, publication statement, numbering of serials, extent, media, carrier type etc. As implemented by the Library of Congress and other institutions, details of the print manifestation or other original manifestation are provided in the 775 or 776 fields.
The decades old US practice of cataloging microform (and some other) reproductions based on the print manifestation (derived from the LCRI of AACR2 11, also known as the “facsimile theory”[1]), was a pragmatic approach which provided users with sufficient descriptive and controlled access from the description of the original to identify a suitable substitute for the original.
Application of RDA instructions to microform records, particularly those for serials, proved to be a challenge for libraries during the RDA test phase. Subsequent to “day 1” of LC’s official adoption of RDA, some libraries, including PCC institutions and former RDA test institutions, chose to at least temporarily continue cataloging microforms according to the LCRI of AACR2 11.
Currently, RDA microform records in WorldCat, particularly for serials, reflect an unpredictable mixture of RDA 1.11 guidelines and carryovers from the LCRI 11. Some descriptions do not contain the authorized access points or proper descriptive elements necessary to identify and obtain reproductions of a desired work.
In June 2013, this task group was formed to accomplish the following:
Make recommendations for:
- LC-PCC Policy Statements to support best practices.
- Adjustments to MARC 21 necessary to support creation of microform descriptions in the current environment.
- Revisions to RDA that will support description of microforms both in the current environment and in the future non-MARC environment.
- Identify areas of overlap with or divergence between the description of microform reproductions and the description of reproductions in other non-digital[2] formats, such as print reprints, print on demand, etc.
Task group members come from a variety of cataloging backgrounds combining years of microform cataloging experience with strong RDA knowledge.
”RDA as CurrentlyInterpreted” Approach
Description
Before investigating the provider neutral approach, non-provider neutral analytical approach, as well as other approaches, the task group would first like to present an example of a “perfect” RDA reproduction record cataloged in MARC ISBD format to better understand which elements the task group may recommend to be retained and which may need to be replaced or improved upon.
Please refer also toRecommendations for cataloging reproductions under RDA (UCSD, 4/29/2013) for additional illustrations and examples of MARC records created according to “RDA as currently interpreted.”
Actual “textbook” examples of RDA reproduction records are few.[3] Those found proved to contain one or more significant errors or possible misinterpretations of RDA (for instance, one serial microfilm reproduction example contained an authorized access point (130) for the work with the incorrect addition “ : microform,” an element actually belonging only to the manifestation). Searching WorldCat for the “perfect” RDA reproduction record also produced unsatisfactory results: virtually all PCC level RDA reproduction records found contained at least one instance of an original manifestation element being preferred over a reproduction element despite the likely presence of both in the resource and despite RDA’s clear instruction to prefer reproduction over original. Frequently encountered were microform records for serials that included notes such as “title from cover” – even though it was likely that the reproduction contained a title frame.
Lacking satisfactory existing examples, it became clear that the task group would have to create its own “perfect” RDA reproduction record. A promising candidate was found containing a balance of simple and complex elements and representing the most significant difficulties involved with applying RDA to a MARC ISBD cataloging environment: a non-US newspaper microfilmed over 2 reels, containing a major title change in the original on the second reel, with the microfilm title frame matching the later title but not the earlier title. In FRBR terms: a single microfilm manifestation containing reproductions of two original manifestations of two serial works. Additional complications: The first issue of the first filmed original newspaper title was not microfilmed, nor were any issues of an even earlier original newspaper whose title was the same as the second filmed title.
Since a strong case could be made that the microfilm manifestation was not itself a serial, the task group reluctantly determined that RDA, as currently interpreted, required that it be cataloged as a monograph. The example appears immediately below.
Figure 1. Reproduction manifestation monograph record of a microfilm titled Newsline, cataloged according to RDA as currently interpreted (fixed fields omitted in this and later figures due to formatting complications)
007 ## ǂa h ǂb d ǂd a ǂe f ǂf b016 ǂg b ǂh a ǂi c ǂj a
007 ## ǂa h ǂb d ǂd b ǂe f ǂf b016 ǂg b ǂh a ǂi b ǂj a
040 ## ǂa CRL ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc CRL
043 ## ǂa f-rw---
245 00 ǂa Newsline : ǂb Kigali, Rwanda.
264 # 1 ǂa [Chicago, Ill.] ; ǂa Philadelphia, Pa. : ǂb Microfilmed for Cooperative Africana Materials Project, the Center for Research Libraries, by Backstage Library Works, ǂc2013.
300 ## ǂa 2 microfilm reels : ǂb illustrations; ǂc 9 cm, 35 mm
336 ## ǂa text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent
337 ## ǂa microform ǂb h ǂ2 rdamedia
338 ## ǂa microfilm reel ǂb hd ǂ2 rdacarrier
580 ## ǂa Microform reproduction of Rwanda newsline, November 29/December 29, 1999-May 28/June 3, 2001; October 14/21,2005-October 25/November 2, 2006 issues. Began in 1999; ceased with vol. 3, no. 039 (25 October/02 November 2006). -Nov. 29/Dec. 12, 1999: Kigali, [Rwanda] : Rwanda Newsline; Dec. 13/23, 1999-: Kigali, Rwanda : Rwanda Independent Media Group (RIMEG). volumes : illustrations. Weekly, Mar. 27/Apr. 2, 2000-Oct. 15/Nov. 2, 2006 issues; Biweekly, -Mar. 13/26, 2000. Back page of some issues titled: Weekly newsline. Some issues include a section titled: Newsline magazine.
580 ## ǂa Microform reproduction of Newsline (Kigali, Rwanda : 2006). Newsline. November 17/24, 2006-September 21/27, 2007 issues. Began with vol. 3, no. 040 (17/24 November 2006). Kigali, Rwanda : Rwanda Independent Media Group (RIMEG). volumes : illustrations. Weekly.
651 #0 ǂa Rwanda ǂv Newspapers.
651 #0 ǂa Kigali (Rwanda) ǂv Newspapers.
730 02 ǂa Rwanda newsline
730 02 ǂa Newsline (Kigali, Rwanda : 2006)
776 08 ǂi Reproduction of (manifestation): ǂt Rwanda newsline. ǂd Kigali [Rwanda] : Rwanda Newsline, -November 29/Dec. 12, 1999; Kigali, Rwanda : Rwanda Independent Media Group (RIMEG), Dec. 13/23, 1999- ǂg November 29/December 29,1999-May 28/June 3,2001;October 14/21,2005-October 25/November 2,2006
776 08 ǂi Reproduction of (manifestation): ǂt Newsline (Kigali, Rwanda : 2006) ǂd Kigali, Rwanda : Rwanda Independent Media Group (RIMEG), 2006- ǂg November 17/24, 2006- :[Gaps]
Analysis
All elements pertaining to the reproduction are recorded or transcribed in their appropriate MARC fields (245, 264, etc.). All elements pertaining to the original are recorded or transcribed in 580 notes, 730 fields, and/or 776 linking fields (some of the same original data appears in more than one field).
Why was a monograph record created, in apparent contradiction to LC’s practice of cataloging microfilm reproductions of serials as serials themselves?[4] When attempting to create a serial record (or records) for this microfilm according to RDA, the task group ran into some unexpected and, as yet, unresolved problems. Initial attempts at solutions produced unsatisfactory results. These are discussed in detail below.
Reasons for cataloging the microfilm manifestation of Rwanda newsline/Newsline as a monograph:
- RDA 2.3.2.3 explicitly states: “When the title of a facsimile or reproduction is different from the title of the original manifestation, choose the title of the facsimile or reproduction as the title proper.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, the title proper of this microfilm reproduction manifestation is clearly Newsline. On the other hand, CONSER treats major title changes as a change from one work to another. Therefore, since the title proper of the original serial changed from Rwanda newsline to Newsline, clearly this microfilm manifestation contains reproductions of two original manifestations of separate works.
- But is the microfilm a serial in itself? If so, is it a single serial or two serials? If a single serial, then what are its first and latest issues and what constitutes the issue numbering (applying 2.6.1.3)? Neither the title frames nor the containers of the two reels include reel numbering. The title frames, however, do contain summary volume numbering and chronological information relating to the original: “Vol. 2, No. 3-62, November 29, 1999-June 3, 2001;” and “Vol. 3, No. 18-53, October 14, 2005-September 27, 2007” respectively.
- If the microfilm is considered a single serial then the appropriate DBO/LIC notes would appear to be:
(362 omitted: even though the original began in 1999, it is not known “when” the microfilm serial “began:” presumably later filming of earlier issues by the same micropublisher would not be considered as separate serials.)
588 ## ǂaDescription based on: Vol. 2, No. 3/62 (November 29, 1999/June 3, 2001)
588 ## ǂaLatest issue consulted: Vol. 3, No. 18/53 (October 14, 2005/September 27, 2007)
- If the microfilm is considered as two serials, what are the titles, since the microfilm title frame for both reels is “Newsline?” One possibility would be to base the first title on the microfilm title frame and the second title on the original.
Title 1: 130 0# ǂa Newsline (Chicago, Ill.)
Title 2: 130 0# ǂa Newsline (Kigali, Rwanda : 2006)
But what constitutes the numbering of the two serials? Only the reels themselves?
Title 1:
362 1# ǂa Ceased with Vol. 3, No. 18/53 (October 14, 2005/September 27, 2007)
588 ## ǂa Description based on: Vol. 2, No. 3/62 (November 29, 1999/June 3, 2001)
588 ## ǂa Latest issue consulted: Vol. 3, No. 18/53 (October 14, 2005/September 27, 2007)
Title 2:
362 1# ǂa Began with Vol. 2, No. 3/62 (November 29, 1999/June 3, 2001)
588 ## ǂa Description based on: Vol. 2, No. 3/62 (November 29, 1999/June 3, 2001)
588 ## ǂa Latest issue consulted: Vol. 3, No. 18/53 (October 14, 2005/September 27, 2007)
Or, as was done with the titles, base the numbering of the first title on the title frame and the numbering of the second title on the original?
Title 1:
362 1# ǂa Ceased with Vol. 3, No. 18/53 (October 14, 2005/September 27, 2007)
588 ## ǂa Description based on: Vol. 2, No. 3/62 (November 29, 1999/June 3, 2001)
588 ## ǂaLatest issue consulted: Vol. 3, No. 18/53 (October 14, 2005/September 27, 2007)
Title 2:
362 1# ǂa Began with Vol. 2, no. 040 (17/24 November 2006)
588 ## ǂa Description based on: Vol. II, no. 040 (17/24 November 2006)
588 ## ǂa Latest issue consulted: Vol. III, no. 053 (21/27 Sept., 2007)
- Work or not a Work?
Another as yet unresolved problem arose during the creation of the microfilm manifestation record for Rwanda newsline/Newsline: if cataloged as a single record (monograph or serial) is the microfilm a work in itself? If so, since its title is “Newsline,” what should be its authorized access point?
130 0# ǂa Newsline (Kigali, Rwanda : Microfilm)
This was ruled out because “microfilm” is considered a manifestation element.
130 0# ǂa Newsline (Chicago, Ill.) or 130 0# ǂa Newsline (Bethlehem, Pa.)
While literally true that the microfilm was created for CRL (which is in Chicago) by Backstage (located in Bethlehem, Pa.), either of these additions seem counter-intuitive and possibly misleading.
Other possibilities:
130 0# ǂa Newsline (Cooperative Africana Materials Project)
130 0# ǂa Newsline (Center for Research Libraries)
In the end, the task group decided to consider the microfilm as not a separate work and therefore did not add a qualified 130.
Having created the “perfect” MARC ISBD RDA record for a microfilm manifestation of a serial containing title changes in the original, the task group then investigated its practicality: would libraries regularly create such records and would their patrons and staff use them?
While this record certainly conforms to RDA, its practical value appears to suffer in comparison to its LCRI 11/MARC 533 predecessors.
Benefits of the “RDA as currently interpreted” approach:
- Conforms to RDA rules for manifestations.
- Useful for creating reproduction records for some non-microform formats in which description was based on reproduction rather than original prior to implementation of RDA.
- In some instances an RDA record based on the microform manifestation information may be preferable to a record based on the reproduced original. This may be the case for microfilms of single monographs since these would likely not pose the same challenges as microfilms of serials or microfilms of two or more monographs.
Drawbacks of this approach:
- Resulting records, particularly MARC ISBD records for reproduced serials, appear less functional and usable than their LCRI 11/MARC 533 predecessors: descriptive access to the originals suffers, particularly when successive original title changes are involved not reflected in the reproduction manifestation titles.
- Possibly fails to conform to RDA 0.4.2 (Objectives), particularly 0.4.2.1 and 0.4.2.2 (that is, users may not be able to properly find, identify, select, obtain, and understand the reproduced resource; cost efficiency of cataloging the reproduced resource may suffer)
- Few RDA libraries have implemented RDA for microform reproduction records.
- For those that have, the existing microform reproduction records – and even some of the “textbook” examples – either do not fully conform to RDA or actually contain errors.
Recommendations:
- “RDA as currently interpreted” approach is not recommended as the mandatory approach to cataloging microform reproductions, or other reproductions whose cataloging descriptions prior to RDA adoption were based (at least in the US) on the original.
- “RDA as currently interpreted” approach, however, should still be allowed as optional for microform reproductions, following catalogers judgment, and the preferred option for certain non-microform reproduction formats. See the section on “Non-Provider Neutral Analytical Approach” for further explanation.
- The question of “is it a serial or not a serial” and “what constitutes an issue” needs to be answered regarding microform reproductions of serials (See also Recommendations for cataloging reproductions under RDAfor more on this topic). Otherwise, the task group recommends that microfilm reproductions of serials cataloged according to “RDA as written” be considered monographs.
RDA Analytical Approach to Cataloging Microform Reproductions
RDA 1.5 outlines three ways of describing a resource: 1) comprehensive, in which the resource is described as a whole; 2) analytical, in which a part of the resource is described; and 3) hierarchical, in which a resource containing two or more parts is described combining both comprehensive and analytical methods. LC and PCC do not presently use hierarchical description.
In its analysis of the Rwanda newsline/Newsline microfilm manifestation, the Task Group decided that since it contains reproductions of two works, the rules for analytical description as specified in RDA 2.1.3 could be applied. This would enable creation of two separate analytical records, one for Rwanda newsline and another for its successor Newsline, with title and numbering for both based on the images of the print original. Both records would include required 773 fields, constructed primarily according to RDA 25.1 and associated LC-PCC PSs, linking to the comprehensive microfilm record. Actual creation of a comprehensive microfilm record, looking very similar to the example in “RDA as currently interpreted,” would be optional. Figures 3-5 cover the Rwanda newsline/Newsline analytical and comprehensive records.
Figure 3. Analytical RDA record for microfilm manifestation of Rwanda newsline
Leader and 008: all based on original, including 008/07-14 (Date 1, Date 2) and 008/15-17 (Ctry). Exception: 008/23 (Form) coded "a" (Microfilm).
007 ## ǂa h ǂb d ǂd a ǂe f ǂf b016 ǂg b ǂh a ǂi c ǂj a
007 ## ǂa h ǂb d ǂd b ǂe f ǂf b016 ǂg b ǂh a ǂi b ǂj a
010 ## ǂa 2013225254
040 ## ǂa CRL ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc CRL
042 ## ǂa pcc
043 ## ǂa f-rw---
050 14 ǂa AN
245 00 ǂa Rwanda newsline.
246 1# ǂi Title on microfilm container: ǂa Newsline, Kigali, Rwanda
246 1# ǂi Back page of some issues titled: ǂa Weekly newsline
246 1# ǂi Some issues include a section titled: ǂa Newsline magazine
264 #1 ǂ3 -Nov. 29/Dec. 12, 1999: ǂa Kigali, [Rwanda] : ǂb Rwanda Newsline, ǂc [1999]-2006.
264 31 ǂ3 Dec. 13/23, 1999-: ǂa Kigali, Rwanda : ǂb Rwanda Independent Media Group (RIMEG)
264 #3 ǂa Bethlehem, PA : ǂb Microfilmed for Cooperative Africana Materials Project, the Center for Research Libraries, by Backstage Library Works, ǂc 2013.
300 ## ǂa 2 microfilm reels : ǂb illustrations ; ǂc 9 cm, 35 mm
310 ## ǂa Weekly, ǂb Mar. 27/Apr. 2, 2000-Oct. 15/Nov. 2, 2006
321 ## ǂa Biweekly, ǂb -Mar. 13/26, 2000
336 ## ǂa text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent
337 ## ǂa microform ǂb h ǂ2 rdamedia
338 ## ǂa microfilm reel ǂb hd ǂ2 rdacarrier
362 1# ǂa Began in 1999; ceased with vol. III, no. 039 (25 October/02 November 2006).
500 ## ǂa Microfilm reproduction of: Rwanda newsline. -- Kigali [Rwanda] : Rwanda Newsline, [1999]-2006. -- 3 volumes : illustrations -- Nov. 29/Dec. 29, 1999-May 28/June 3, 2001; Oct. 14/21, 2005-Oct. 25/Nov. 2, 2006.
501 ## ǂa On reel with: Newsline (Kigali, Rwanda : 2006). -- Kigali, Rwanda : Rwanda Independent Media Group (RIMEG), 2006-
588 ## ǂa Description based on: Vol. III, no. 03 (Nov. 29/Dec. 12, 1999); title from masthead (microfilm reel containing November 29, 1999-June 3, 2001).
588 ## ǂa Latest issue consulted: Vol. III, no. 039 (25 October/02 November 2006) (microfilm reel containing October 14, 2005-September 27, 2007).
651 #0 ǂa Rwanda ǂv Newspapers.
651 #0 ǂa Kigali (Rwanda) ǂv Newspapers.
752 ## ǂa Rwanda ǂd Kigali.
773 08 ǂi Contained in: ǂt Newsline, Kigali, Rwanda. ǂd Bethlehem, PA : Microfilmed for Cooperative Africana Materials Project, the Center for Research Libraries, by Backstage Library Works, 2013 ǂh 2 microfilm reels ; 9 cm, 35 mm ǂw (OCoLC)########
Note: this field would be required, minus the $w, even if a comprehensive record was not created.
776 08 ǂi Reproduction of (manifestation): ǂt Rwanda newsline. ǂd Kigali, [Rwanda] : Rwanda Newsline, 1999-2006. ǂg 1999-vol. III, no. 039 (25 October/02 November 2006). ǂh 3 volumes : illustrations