Task Force on the Review of ISBD(M)

CC:DA/TF/ISBD(M)/2000/3

June 12, 2000

Final Report

Introduction

The charge to the Task Force was as follows: “The Task Force on the Review of ISBD (M) is charged with the detailed review of the changes to the 1987 revised edition of the International Standard Bibliographic Description for Monographic Publications ISBD (M) proposed by the ISBD Review Group. Particular attention should be given to areas, if any, in which AACR2R is not in conformance with the proposed changes to the ISBD (M) and areas, if any, in which the proposed changes are not in conformance with the provisions of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. The Task Force shall submit a final report to the chair of CC:DA by June 15, 2000.” In addition, Dan Kinney, CC:DA Chair sent a message on April 20 to the Task Force Chair (shared with the Task Force on the 29th) indicating “It would probably be helpful to note where the ISBD (M) and AACR2R are not in conformance (CC:DA can take it from there).”

Themes in the Task Force’s Analysis of IFLA’s ISBD (M) Report

Optionality. An issue that soon became apparent was how to interpret the meaning and significance of the “optionality” of rules within the ISBD (M). Members expressed differing views on “optionality.”

• Other standards. One of the ways optionality can be viewed is to look at ISBD (M) optionality in relation to other existing standards and the interrelated philosophies regarding optionality that underlie those texts (e.g., Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2 ed. Rev. (AACR2R), “Core Level Record for Books”). One discussion theme is that certain elements are necessarily mandatory in the ISBD (M) — or not — because similar elements exist or do not exist as part of the basic record described in the FRBR. In relationship to AACR2R it was noted in discussion early on that there frequently is not a one-to-one correspondence in the ISBD (M) rules and AACR2R, because of the overlapping instructions in chapter l with those found in chapter 2. We have included a comparison appendix at the end of this report that examines the optionality of the elements in question with respect to various standards.

• Text vs. footnote. Another way optionality can be interpreted is in relationship to whether an option is actually described in the ISBD (M) text or in a footnote to the ISBD (M) text. There are patterns for both usages, the question being whether one location carries more or less weight than another location.

• The meaning of mandatory. Thirdly, optionality can be seen from different viewpoints in relation to the concept of mandatory. Thus, whether an element is optional contributes to both overt and covert interpretations of the concept of mandatory for that element. Although “optional” does not equal “do not add” to the bibliographic record in a literal sense, in practice, “optional” often does end up meaning “do not add” because libraries will make blanket policies about whether or not to follow “optional” rules rather than allowing their catalogers the discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not optional elements are to be included in the description.

ISBD (M) and AACR2R. Regarding ISBD (M) and AACR2R, the Task Force has some general statements to make, mostly regarding the incompatibility of these two documents in regard to optionality.

Areas of Agreement with IFLA’s ISBD (M) Report

• 1.3   Parallel title.   We agree; make this optional. We also agree with the IFLA Review Group’s footnote recommendation: “(l). Parallel titles should be included in the basic record to the extent that they are essential to the accurate description of the item or are considered important to the user of the catalogue.”

• 1.5   Statements of responsibility — subsequent statement.   We agree; make this optional.

• 2.5   Statements of responsibility following an additional edition statement.   We agree; make this optional.

• 5.2   Illustration statement.   We agree; make this optional. Although this might be useful as part of a search, it is not included in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) basic record.

• 6.2   Parallel titles of series or sub-series.   We agree; make this optional. We also agree with the IFLA Review Group’s footnote recommendation: “(2). Parallel titles of series should be included in the basic record to the extent that they are essential to the accurate identification of the item or are considered important to the user.”

• 6.4   Statements of responsibility relating to the series or sub-series.   We agree; make this optional. We also agree with the IFLA Review Group’s footnote recommendation: “(3). Statement of responsibility for the series is considered a basic requirement only in cases where the series title alone is insufficient to identify the series.”

• 7.1.2   Notes on the nature, scope, literary form.   We agree; make this optional. While we mainly agree with the IFLA Review Group’s footnote recommendation, we would make a minor adjustment and clarification to the IFLA Review Group’s footnote wording by (a) adding back a comma deleted after the words “literary form,” and (b) by recommending the addition of “on the form” to the first phrase of the sentence, as an aid to comprehension.

  Suggested amended text:

  7.1.2. Notes on the nature, scope, literary form, purpose or language of the publication. (5)

  (5). A note on the form is necessary only if the form of expression cannot be inferred from other elements of the description and a note on language only if the linguistic content of the expression is significant and where the language of the content cannot be inferred from other elements of the description.

• 7.2   Notes on the edition area and the bibliographic history of the publication.   We agree; make this optional. We also agree with the IFLA Review Group’s footnote recommendation: “(6). Notes on preceding/succeeding works, supplements, etc. are given when the relationship is such that the use or understanding of the publication described is dependent on a knowledge of the related publication. A note on the related publication is also given when the publication described contains a revision.”

• 8.3   Terms of availability.   We agree; make this optional. We also generally agree with the IFLA Review Group’s footnote recommendation: “(4). A note on the source for acquisition/access authorization is considered a basic requirement only in cases where the manifestation is likely to be difficult to obtain through normal trade sources.” However, we also comment that this footnote may be superfluous since a book easily obtained via “normal” sources when it is cataloged often becomes difficult to obtain later, once it has gone out of print — so the purchasing information often becomes outdated rapidly. As such, if primary purposes of the catalog are to find, obtain and distinguish between items already acquired then those purposes are not readily met by such a note.

Areas of Disagreement with IFLA’s ISBD (M) Report

• 1.4   Other title information.   A majority of Task Force members believe that if this is to remain optional, that an additional footnote must be added; otherwise it should remain mandatory. If it is going to remain optional, our recommendation is to make a new footnote, which would become the new footnote (2), as follows. (The existing footnotes would subsequently need to be renumbered).

  Suggested REVISED text:

  1.4 Other title information (optional) (2)

  (2). Other title information should be included in the basic record to the extent that they are essential to the accurate identification of the item or is considered important to the user of the catalogue.

  We have several comments about this element. In some cases, other title information may contain basic identifying information and may be crucial for identification of a particular work, or of a particular expression or manifestation of a work. Second, other title information also often helps users to distinguish one work from another or to assess the usefulness of a work in meeting their particular needs, especially in cases where the user is not searching for a specific known title. Third, given that the rules already provide for abridging or giving in a note lengthy other title information, it would probably be detrimental to make this area completely optional.

• 2.3   Statements of responsibility relating to the edition.   A majority of Task Force members do not agree; this should remain mandatory. This element is not compatible with the FRBR basic record specifications. Since it is not optional in the FRBR, why make it optional here? Also, there may be times that this an important element in identifying a manifestation, such as when catalogers need to show usage for names of revisors, etc., that will be used as access points on the record, when heading usage is required for finding a particular manifestation.

• 5.3   Dimensions.   A majority of Task Force members do not agree; this should remain mandatory. This element is not compatible with the FRBR basic record specifications. Our first comment of several comments is that since it is not optional in the FRBR, why make it optional here? Secondly, in cataloging for special collections, the dimensions element given in a record is often the only clue that it is a special edition of some sort. Thirdly, practically speaking, size can be a key clue in distinguishing between particular manifestations of a work. At times, size is the only distinguishing factor, and a significant one for patrons (miniature editions, for example). Further, it is not always possible to predict when size is a key factor distinguishing manifestations, so it would be difficult to add a footnote giving the circumstances under which dimensions would be considered “basic.” Our fourth comment is that there is a recurring pattern for using dimension has both as an identifying tool and as a finding mechanism for physical printed items in a physical world.

ISBD (M) and AACR2R

However, we note that monographic rules in AACR2R do not map easily to the ISBD (M) because of the interlinking of the global rules of instruction for all classes of materials in chapter 1 with each chapter, including chapter 2. In other words, because AACR2R’s chapter 2, Books, pamphlets and printed sheets and its chapter l, General rules for description are (a) inexorably linked to each other and therefore to instruction on other classes of materials in chapters 3-11, and (b) because some of the elements in chapter 2 only partially correspond to the ISBD (M), it is difficult to consider that AACR2R chapter 2 is, in terms of optionality, a comparable document to the ISBD (M). Further, several of us would not like to see options applied to print materials that are not also considered for application to all of the other classes of materials.

More specifically, areas of chapter 2 that more or less correspond with the ISBD (M) include: parallel title, other title information, statements of responsibility, statements of responsibility relating to the edition, statements of responsibility relating to a named revision of an edition, illustrative matter, dimensions, [notes on] nature, scope or artistic form, [notes on] edition and history, and terms of availability. Within AACR2R, only “terms of availability” is already optional with the ISBD (M) and therefore compatible with the ISBD (M). Regarding notes in AACR2R, most are already optional or already left to cataloguer’s judgement. We highlight the fact that there are no corresponding elements in chapters 1 or 2 on subsequent statements of responsibility; in chapter 2 on series parallel titles; or in chapters 1 or 2 on statements of responsibility relating to the series or subseries. Moreover, of those elements within chapter 2 that do at least partially correspond, many of the elements provide much briefer instruction than does the ISBD (M) and many of those brief instructions are specifically linked to chapter 1 instructions.

Furthermore, AACR2R rule 1.0D Levels of detail in description establishes three different minimum levels of detail on which to base a description, depending upon the purpose of the catalogue(s) in question. This offers a kind of optionality that is not and cannot be expressed in the ISBD (M). In addition, AACR2R is often used in conjunction with other standards (e.g., LCRIs, etc.) that further modify practical application of AACR2R with respect to optionality. There was some sentiment among Task Force members that if AACR2R was to be modified regarding optionality, that it might be done with regard to chapter 1, however there was no consensus on that point. One example of how this might potentially work is that certain elements might be removed from the second level of description of 1.0D2. Only one element caught the eye of a member of this Task Force for that purpose, and that was the element of illustrative matter. Again, we are not recommending any changes to AACR2R in this report.

Given the above discussion, we feel that it is nearly impossible, and so perhaps not appropriate, to consider systematically harmonizing, in terms of optionality, the ISBD (M) with AACR2R, since their underlying structures differ with respect to optionality.

Comparison Appendix

 Element 1:  Parallel title(s)
      1.0D:  Included in Level 2; not included in Level 1
      Core:  included
      FRBR:  included (Find a manifestation)

 Element 2:  Other title information
      1.0D:  included in Level 2; not included in Level 1
      Core:  included
      FRBR:  see discussion on p. 98-99; seems to denigrate
             the distinction between title proper and other
             title information  (?)

 Element 3:  Subsequent statements of responsibility
      1.0D:  included in Level 1 (under some circumstances);
             Level 2 includes statements of responsibility
             and does not distinguish 1st from subsequent
      Core:  included
      FRBR:  not included (1st statement is included:
             Identify manifestation)

 Element 4:  Statements of responsibility relating to the edition
      1.0D:  not included in Level 1; included in level 2
             (1st statement only)
      Core:  included (1st statement only)
      FRBR:  included (1st statement only): Identify manifestation

 Element 5:  Statements of responsibility following an
             additional edition statement
      1.0D:  not included
      Core:  not required
      FRBR:  not included

 Element 6:  Illustration statement
      1.0D:  not included in Level 1; included in Level 2
      Core:  included (does not distinguish out elements of the
             Physical Description)
      FRBR:  not included

 Element 7:  Dimensions
      1.0D:  not included in Level 1; included in Level 2
      Core:  included (does not distinguish out elements of the
             Physical Description)
      FRBR:  included: Select manifestation

 Element 8:  Parallel titles of series or subseries
      1.0D:  not included in Level 1 or 2
      Core:  not required
      FRBR:  not included

 Element 9:  Statements of responsibility relating to series
             or subseries
      1.0D:  not included in Level 1; included in Level 2
      Core:  not explicitly mentioned
      FRBR:  not included

Element 10:  Notes on nature, scope, form, purpose, language
      1.0D:  not included in Level 1; "Note(s)" included in Level 2 (?)
      Core:  only those notes that support identification
             are required
      FRBR:  included: Identify expression; Select expression

Element 11:  Notes on the edition area and the bibliographic history
      1.0D:  not included in Level 1; "Note(s)" included in  Level 2 (?)
      Core:  only those notes that support identification
             are required
      FRBR:  included for some relationships:
               Identify work (parent)
               Select work (preceding/succeeding; supplements; complements)
               Select expression (various)

Element 12:  Terms of availability
      1.0D:  not included in Level 1 or 2
      Core:  not required
      FRBR:  not included

Notes on the comparison:

1. In many cases, FRBR contains language that parallels the notes to the ISBD (M), limiting inclusion to information needed to identify an item. In this sense, some of the seeming contradictions between FRBR and the ISBD (M) recommendations are explained.

2. Both AACR2R 1.0D and Core fail to make some of the distinctions that FRBR and ISBD (M) make. In some cases, Core in particular makes an entire field mandatory, but does not specifically address the individual data elements (e.g., 300).

3. If it is appropriate for AACR2R to retain rule 1.0D and to adjust it to increase its sophistication and utility (which is a big if), introducing some additional distinctions into the rule might be a good idea. On the other hand, record content requirements exist outside of AACR2R — perhaps more usefully — and it may be that rule 1.0D isn’t worth changing.

Members

John C. Attig
Larry Heiman
Carol Hixson
Laurel Jizba, Chair
Sherry Kelley
Shirley J. Lincicum