The Logical Structure of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules — Part II

UNOFFICIAL NOTES on a Presentation by Tom Delsey
to the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR
Leeds, England
November 20 & 21, 1998


[ Outline of the Presentation ]


One of the highlights of the November meeting of the Joint Steering Committee was a presentation by Tom Delsey of the data model of Part II of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. Tom had presented his model of Part I at a special meeting in Washington in July (see separate report). This completes the model.

This report consists primarily of quotations from a 89-page introduction to Tom’s report. The report itself also contains 32 tabbed sections setting forth the details of the model.

This is a preliminary report (it will be expanded in December by notes made at the meeting by John Attig) and a supplement to the full document (which will be made available soon on the JSC web site in Adobe Acrobat .PDF format). It is presented so that groups working on the revision of AACR, and particularly the Task Force on Rule 0.24 that has been appointed by the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access, can benefit from the insights that Tom’s model provides into the logical (and semantic) structure of the code. As with all documents relating to the rule revision process, it needs to be kept in mind that nothing presented here in any way changes the rules nor does it constitute an authoritative interpretation of the rules. It is a tool for understanding the code so that the rules can be developed in a coherent manner. This document should only be used in this way.



The Logical Structure of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules — Part II

Drafted for
The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR

by Tom Delsey, National Library of Canada

with assistance from
Beth Dulabahn, Library of Congress
Michael Heaney, Oxford University

November 1998




Outline of the Presentation



Objective

“The principal objective of this study is to develop a formalized schema to reflect the internal logic of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules.” For more details about the objective, see the corresponding section in the report on Part I.



Methodology

The methodology of this study is the same employed in Part I. See the corresponding section in the report on Part I.



“Bibliographic” Entities

The primary bibliographic constructs found in Part II of AACR, and the relationships between them, are set out in Figure 1 [to be added later]. These entities are all abstract concepts that act as points of reference or devices for structuring the rules. A second group of “real world” entities (agents, processes and objects) are taken into account in determining choice of access points. The way in which these choices are to be made is the principle subject of the model.

The bibliographic entities fall into two groups. On the left side of the diagram are a set of entities introduced in Part I of the code, which re-emerge in Part II as points of reference for the rules relating to choice and form of access points. On the right side of the diagram represent entities introduced in Part II of the rules.

Entities Introduced in Part I

  • ITEM is a document or set of documents in any physical form, published, issued or treated as an entity. The rules in Part II reference attributes of the item in dealing with questions such as sources of information used to determine choice and form of entry. An ITEM may or may not belong to one or more SERIES. Every ITEM belongs to a CLASS OF MATERIALS and a TYPE OF PUBLICATION, which in turn determines the CHIEF SOURCE OF INFORMATION.

  • SERIES is a group of separate items related to one another by the fact that each item bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole. There are rules in Part II providing for added entries under the heading for a SERIES to which an ITEM belongs.

  • CLASS OF MATERIALS is the broad class or specific class of materials to which an item belongs (or is assigned). Although the rules in Part II for the most part apply to works and not to physical manifestations of those works, the CLASS OF MATERIALS occasionally has a bearing on the choice of main entry (e.g., the section in Chapter 21 that applies to sound recordings). CLASS OF MATERIALS also helps determine the CHIEF SOURCE OF INFORMATION, which is relevant to the choice and form of access points.

  • TYPE OF PUBLICATION is the category to which a published item belongs (or is assigned) with respect to its intended termination (i.e., whether it is a serial or a monograph). In Part II, the TYPE OF PUBLICATION determines the way in which changes in responsibility and changes in title proper are reflected in the entry. The TYPE OF PUBLICATION, along with the CLASS OF MATERIALS, also determines the CHIEF SOURCE OF INFORMATION.

  • CHIEF SOURCE OF INFORMATION is the source of bibliographic data to be given preference as the source from which the bibliographic description is prepared. The CHIEF SOURCE OF INFORMATION is determined by the CLASS OF MATERIALS and the TYPE OF PUBLICATION to which an ITEM belongs. The CHIEF SOURCE OF INFORMATION is the principal source for determining the choice of access points.

Entities Introduced in Part II

  • HEADING is a name, word or phrase placed at the head of a catalogue entry or reference to provide an access point. A HEADING may represent a BIBLIOGRAPHIC IDENTITY for a PERSON or CORPORATE BODY, a WORK or a SERIES.

  • BIBLIOGRAPHIC IDENTITY is an identity established by a PERSON or CORPORATE BODY through usage in WORKS by that person or body. The rules provide for the use of different headings to represent separate BIBLIOGRAPHIC IDENTITIES established by a single person. By extension, the rules providing for different headings for earlier and later names of a CORPORATE BODY are treated in the model as an implementation of the BIBLIOGRAPHIC IDENTITY concept.

  • WORK is a specific body of recorded information in the form of words, numerals, sounds, images, or any other symbols, as distinct from the substance on which it is recorded. The concept of WORK is central both to the determination of the main entry and to the application of uniform titles. A WORK may or may not be identified by a UNIFORM TITLE.

  • UNIFORM TITLE is the particular title by which a work is to be identified for cataloguing purposes. The uniform title serves as a bibliographic device for bringing together entries for a work that has appeared in various manifestations under various titles.

  • REFERENCE is a direction from one heading or entry to another. The rules in Part II specify when references are to be made and the form of “see” references, “see also” references, and explanatory references.

  • ENTRY is a record of an item in a catalogue. Part II of the code focuses on the choice of access points under which a DESCRIPTION of an ITEM in entered, and on differentiating between the main and added entries for an item. An ENTRY may have a UNIFORM TITLE added to the HEADING.

  • DESCRIPTION is a structured set of bibliographic data describing an ITEM. The DESCRIPTION (formulated according to the rules in Part I), together with a HEADING and/or a UNIFORM TITLE constitutes an ENTRY. If the ENTRY includes neither a HEADING nor a UNIFORM TITLE, the initial element of the DESCRIPTION itself (i.e., the title proper) serves to determine the filing position of the ENTRY within the catalogue.

Factors that Determine Choice of Access Points

The “real world” entities (persons, processes, and objects) that are taken into account in determining choice of access points are shown in Figure 2 [to be added later].

There are four key factors involved in choice of entry:

  1. The number of persons and/or corporate bodies associated with the content of the item described

    • PERSON is an individual. The number of persons responsible for the content of the ITEM described is a key factor in determining the choice of main and added ENTRIES.

    • CORPORATE BODY is an organization or group of persons that is identified by a particular name and that acts, or may act, as an entity. Again, the number of bodies responsible for the content of the ITEM described is a key factor in determining the choice of main and added ENTRIES.

  2. The relationship between a person or corporate body and the content of the item described

    A PERSON may be responsible for the CREATION, MODIFICATION, PERFORMANCE or COMPILING/EDITING of CONTENT. A CORPORATE BODY may be responsible for the EMANATION or PERFORMANCE of CONTENT. Either may have some OTHER ASSOCIATION with the CONTENT.

    • CREATION is the act of originating intellectual or artistic CONTENT.

    • MODIFICATION is the act of modifying a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic WORK through revision, adaptation, translation, transcription, arrangement, etc.

    • PERFORMANCE is the act of performing a literary, dramatic, or musical WORK. In Part II, PERFORMANCE is divided into those that go beyond execution or interpretation and those that do not.

    • COMPILING or EDITING is the act of producing a collection by selecting and arranging matter from the WORKS of one or more persons or bodies, or preparing for publication one or more WORKS by another person or body.

    • EMANATION is the act of issuing, causing to be issued, or originating intellectual or artistic CONTENT.

    • OTHER ASSOCIATION is any association between a PERSON or CORPORATE BODY and the CONTENT of an ITEM other than those already listed.

  3. The nature of the content of the item and of individual parts of the content

    • CONTENT is the intellectual or artistic substance contained in an ITEM. The nature of the CONTENT will, in some cases, determine the choice of main and added entries.

    • CONTENT PART is an individual component of the intellectual or artistic CONTENT of an ITEM. The nature of individual parts, their relative prominence and their relationship to one another will, in some cases, determine the choice of main and added entries.

  4. The relationship of the WORK or WORKS manifested in the ITEM to other WORKS. This relationship will, in some cases, determine choice of main and added ENTRIES or may result in making an added ENTRY under the HEADING (name-title or title) for the related work.

The model goes on to discuss how these factors structure the rules for choice of main and added entries. There are a series of diagrams illustrating entry under personal name headings for:

  1. Entry under heading for author or probably author
  2. Entry under heading for principal author or first named author
  3. Entry under shared pseudonym
  4. Entry under heading for author of first named work or first named author
  5. Entry under heading for principal performer or first named principal performer
  6. Entry under heading for adapter/reviser/translator/arranger
  7. Entry under heading for author of original work
  8. Entry under heading for author of augmented work
  9. Entry under heading for author of augmenting work
  10. Entry under heading for first named or more prominently named collaborator
  11. Entry under heading for collaborator in a work of shared responsibility
  12. Entry under heading for second (or third) author of works in a collection
  13. Entry under heading for second (or third) principal performer
  14. Entry under heading for collaborator in a work of mixed responsibility
  15. Entry under heading for editor(s) or compiler(s)
  16. Entry under heading for other related person

There are a series of diagrams illustrating entry under corporate name headings for:

  1. Entry under heading for corporate body
  2. Entry under heading for corporate body with principal responsibility or first named corporate body
  3. Entry under heading for corporate body responsible for first named work or first named corporate body
  4. Entry under heading for principal performing body or first named principal performing body
  5. Entry under heading for body responsible for augmented work
  6. Entry under heading for body responsible for augmenting work
  7. Entry under heading for corporate body responsible for original work
  8. Entry under heading for second (or third) corporate body responsible for a work of shared responsibility
  9. Entry under heading for second (or third) corporate body responsible for works in a collection
  10. Entry under heading for a second (or third) principal performing body
  11. Entry under heading for prominently named or other related corporate body

There are a series of diagrams illustrating entry under title for:

  1. Entry under title for a work of unknown authorship or by an unnamed group
  2. Entry under title for a work of diffuse authorship
  3. Entry under title for a collection of works by different persons and/or bodies
  4. Entry under title for a work emanating from a corporate body
  5. Entry under title for certain religious works
  6. Entry under title for other works

There are a series of diagrams illustrating name-title added entries for:

  1. Name-title added entry (personal name) under heading for related work
  2. Name title added entry (corporate body) under heading for related work
  3. Name-title analytical added entry (personal name)
  4. Name-title analytical added entry (corporate name)

Finally, there is a diagram illustrating entry under heading for a series.


Relationships

The rules in Part II provide for reflecting a number of the relationships that operate between the “bibliographic” and the “real world” entities. The following relationships are identified and discussed in the model:

  1. PERSON <==> CREATION relationships
  2. PERSON <==> MODIFICATION relationships
  3. PERSON <==> PERFORMANCE relationships
  4. PERSON <==> COMPILATION/EDITING relationships
  5. PERSON <==> OTHER ASSOCIATION relationships
  6. CORPORATE BODY <==> EMANATION relationships
  7. CORPORATE BODY <==> PERFORMANCE relationships
  8. CORPORATE BODY <==> OTHER ASSOCIATION relationships
  9. WORK BODY <==> WORK relationships
  10. SERIES BODY <==> ITEM relationships


Key Issues

The second part of the report was a discussion of six key issues relating to the structure of the code and its future development with specific reference to the logical structure set out in the model.


Key Issues

  1. Functions of the Catalogue

  2. The Concept of “Authorship”

  3. The Concept of “Work”

  4. The Concept of “Edition”

  5. The Citation Form for a Work

  6. The organization of the rules for choice of entry




Issue No. 1:
Functions of the Catalogue

Any examination of the principles upon which AACR is based should begin by assessing those principles with respect to their effectiveness in fulfilling the functions of the catalogue. Although there is no explicit statement in the code relating to the functions of the catalogue, the preface to the 1978 edition does indicate that the code was developed with a view to maintaining general conformity with the Paris Principles of 1961. It can be inferred, therefore, that the assumed functions of the catalogue on which the code is based are those set out in section 2 of the Paris Principles:

2. Functions of the catalogue
The catalogue should be an efficient instrument for ascertaining
2.1 whether the library contains a particular book specified by
(a) its author and title, or
(b) if the author is not named in the book, its title alone, or
(c) if author and title are inappropriate or insufficient for identification, a suitable substitute for the title; and
2.2 (a) which works by a particular author and
      (b) which editions of a particular work are in the library

Assessing the extent to which catalogues constructed according to the rules in AACR will fulfill those functions requires as a first step an analysis of how the terms “author,” “work,” and “edition” are interpreted in the context of the code.


Issue No. 2:
The Concept of “Authorship”

The term “authorship” is used in AACR only with reference to works of personal authorship. The term would appear to encompass those relationships between a person or persons and the content of an item that entail responsibility for either creation or modification of the intellectual or artistic content. Presumably the other relationships between a person or persons and the content of an item (e.g., responsibility for performance, for editing) fall outside the scope of “authorship.”

While the code provides rules that support this concept of authorship and the function of finding items through their author’s names, the rules contain specific instructions that limit the making of entries that would otherwise be included. For example, an entry under the heading for a translator or illustrator is made only under conditions set out in rule 21.30K1. Most notoriously, entry under the heading for a collaborator in a work of shared responsibility is made only if there are no more than three principal authors or three persons responsible (the “rule of three”). Are these valid exceptions to the rule of entry under “authors”?

A second question arising from AACR’s implementation of the concept of “authorship” relates to the provisions for making entries under headings for persons whose relationship to the content falls outside the scope of creation or modification of the intellectual or artistic content. Are entries under (for example) performers justified? If so, this may imply that the functions of the catalogue are in fact more extensive than those stated in the Paris Principles. What kinds of relationships should be reflected in entries specified by the code? Are there newly emerging relationships between persons and bibliographic items that should be reflected?

A third issue relating to “authorship” relates to the concept of “bibliographic identity.” Does this concept in fact alter the concept of “authorship” in that the “author” may not be a person as such, but a persona treated as a person for bibliographic purposes? If “author” is in fact an abstract entity, can an argument be made for extending the application of the concept of “bibliographic identity” beyond those cases dealt with in rules 22.2B (Pseudonyms) and 21.6D (Shared pseudonyms)? Why are other instances of persons using more than one name not treated in this manner? Is it possible to articulate a principle to reflect this inconsistent treatment?


Issue No. 3:
The Concept of “Work”

The introduction to Part II of the code states that the rules therein “apply to works and not to physical manifestations of those works.” However, the term “work” is not defined anywhere in the code. The model proposes a definition derived from the ALA Glossary of Library and Information Science: “a specific body of recorded information in the form of words, numerals, sounds, images, or any other symbols, as distinct from the substance on which it is recorded.” This definition is not substantially different from that of “content” and, in Part II of the code, the two terms are to a large extent interchangeable.

The assumption generally made is that the main entry heading together with the uniform title (if applicable) or the title proper serve as the standard form of citation for the work. That assumption is supported both by the instructions in Part I for citing “other works” in the description, and by the instructions in Part II for formulating name-title added entries for related works. There is also an assumption generally made that two items with the same main entry heading and uniform title, or with the same main entry heading and title proper, are embodiments of the same work, and conversely, that two items are not embodiments of the same work unless they have the same main entry heading and uniform title (or main entry heading and title proper). These assumptions, however, do not apply equally across all permutations of the factors determining choice of entry.

These general assumptions appear to be valid when applied to cases where the content of the item is perceived to be a single work, although there are complications in the cases of works of shared or mixed responsibility and of modifications of works. On the other hand, items containing more than one work are less easily accommodated by the general assumption. Because a citation (main entry heading plus title) can pertain to only one work, the relation of the main entry (and uniform title) to an item consisting of more than one work is more complicated than in the case of single works. The main entry may represent only one work, it may represent several (with a collective uniform title) or it may represent a collection (i.e., none of the works themselves).

If the rules in Part II are to be re-examined with a view to establishing and articulating underlying principles related to the identity of a work and the parameters that determine the existence of a new work (as distinct from another instance of the same work), the first question is whether any principles can be extrapolated from the complexity of criteria for determining choice of entry. Are there any principles that can be articulated at a reasonably high level of generality?

A second question is whether the current restrictions on the identification of works in items containing collections of works by different persons of bodies can be justified as an exception to statement 2.2(a) in the Paris Principles. In other words, can the application of the “rule of three” be justified in the case of analytical entries for collections?


Issue No. 4:
The Concept of “Edition”

The statement relating to the functions of the catalogue in the Paris Principles states that the catalogue should be an efficient instrument for ascertaining “which editions of a particular work are in the library.” The definition of “edition” appended to the Paris Principles is “the embodiment of a work in a particular typographic form.”

The definition of “edition” in the glossary of AACR is similar. However, there is a significant difference. The definition in the Paris Principles is framed with reference to the work as an abstract entity, while the definition in AACR is framed with reference to the item as a physical entity.

To the extent that the rules referred to in the previous section serve to bring together under a common citation all the entries for items containing the same work, the functional objective in the Paris Principles relating to editions of a work will be met. However, there are provisions in the rules that compromise the principle. For example, if different editions of a work of shared responsibility give the names in different order, then the citation for those editions will be different. There are also cases in which either no uniform title is assigned to editions of a work with different titles proper (in the case of revision or updating of a work), or in which different uniform titles are assigned to different editions of the same work.

The question to be addressed is whether these exceptional provisions made in specific cases are more widely applicable (in which case they need to be accommodated in the general rules) or whether they are truly exceptional — or whether they are in fact unjustified.


Issue No. 5:
The Citation Form for a Work

The general introduction to the code sets out two functional reasons for distinguishing between main and added entries (0.5). The first is that a main entry is needed in a single-entry catalogue. The second is that the citation form represented by the main entry heading and uniform title (or title proper) is essential for determining the form of a name-title added entry for a related work. It is the second of these reasons that is examined here.

What ultimately determines the form of the title element in the citation is whether or not a uniform title has been established. Since the instructions in Chapter 25 relating to the use of uniform titles are treated as optional, it will be a matter of policy to determine whether a uniform title is in fact established. In most cases, the title portion of the citation will consist simply of the title proper of the related work.

The optionality regarding use of uniform title stated in rule 25.1A becomes somewhat problematic in the context of a shared cataloguing environment. If the construction of the citation form used in name-title added entries for related works is dependent on whether the main entry for the related work has or has not had a uniform title added to it, the name-title added entry can only be constructed to function within the catalogue of the library devising the added entry. Once that entry is “borrowed” for use in another catalogue, there is no guarantee that the name-title added entry will in fact function as intended to collocate the entries for the related works.

The larger issue to be addressed is whether the use of the citation form as it is developed in the code is in fact an optimally effective device for reflecting work-to-work relationships in the catalogue, particularly given the technology currently available to support bibliographic databases.


Issue No. 6:
The Organization of the Rules for Choice of Entry

The model described in Figures 1 and 2 shows that the criteria invoked by the rules in Part II of the code employ a wide range of entities and that the interrelationships between those entities are highly complex. It is not surprising, therefore, that the categorizations used to structure the rules for choice of entry are so complex.

At this point in the model, Tom introduces a set of four tables that map the key criteria used in categorizing works of personal authorship (type of responsibility for the work, configuration of works within the item, nature of derivation from antecedent works, and type of work) against the various “candidates” for main entry (author, principle author, etc.). In the case of works for which a single person is responsible, there are only two basic options: (author, if known; otherwise, title). However, as the criteria become more complex, the illusion of a few general principles rapidly evaporates. The number on entities on which the main entry heading may be based increases to four in the case of works of shared authorship, to five in the case of collections of works by different persons, and to twenty in the case of works of mixed responsibility. The choice of main entry heading becomes increasingly linked to the configuration of works within the item, to the specific nature of the relationship between the work and its antecedent, and to the particular type of work involved. The logical inferences that can be made about the applicability of a basic rule to a particular sub-category become progressively more difficult to extrapolate and less likely to extend across sub-categories.

All this raises some questions. Is the distinction between shared and mixed responsibility sufficiently clear? Are there other categories of collaboration that need to be considered? Are all of the exceptions for particular types of work (much of it what Gorman described as “case law”) justified? Could we simplify the basic categories (for instance, combine shared and mixed responsibility or remove the “rule of three” number criterion)? Again, the model provides much raw material for mapping the existing complexity and can be used as a tool to test alternative approaches.


Recommendations on the Key Issues

Recommendations

  1. Using the model developed for this study as a frame of reference, develop a specification for the functions of the catalogue that fully articulates the objectives underlying the rules in the code that relate to the choice of access points and the construction and use of uniform titles. The tables used in Chapter 7 of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records might serve as a model for structuring the specifications.

  2. Re-assess the concept of “authorship” as it relates to the functions of the catalogue, and determine whether the exceptions in the rules that limit the assignment of access points in certain instances (including the “rule of three”) should be altered.

  3. Assess the need to reflect additional relationships between persons and corporate bodies and the content of an item in the context of newly emerging forms of intellectual and artistic expression and multimedia productions.

  4. Using the model as a frame of reference, test the feasibility of developing and articulating principles relating to the identity of the work or works manifested in the content of an item that can be applied at a more generalized level than is currently reflected in the specifics of the rules for choice of entry.

  5. Re-assess the current restrictions imposed by the application of the “rule of three” on the identification of individual works in items containing collections of works by different persons or bodies.

  6. Using the model developed for this study, re-examine the use of the citation form as it is developed in the code to determine whether it is an optimally effective device for reflecting work-to-work relationships in the catalogue in light of the technology currently available to support bibliographic databases.

  7. Examine the feasibility of re-structuring the rules in Chapter 21 with a view to simplifying the use of the rules and facilitating the application of “general” rules to particular cases in the absence of rules dealing specifically with the case in question.




jca — 11/9/98