CC:DA/Chair/2000-2001/1

July 18, 2000

Mr. Byrum,

Attached please find “Comments on Proposed ISBD(M) Revisions,” a response from the American Library Association’s Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) to the ISBD Review Group’s call for comments on proposed changes in the ISBD(M): International Standard Bibliographic Description for Monographic Publications.

The comments in this document were formulated by the CC:DA Task Force on the Review of ISBD(M) and approved with some modifications at the American Library Association conference in Chicago in July 2000.

I hope that our review of your proposed changes to ISBD(M) is helpful to the ISBD Review Group. Thank you for permitting us to add our input.

Sincerely,


Adam L. Schiff
Chair, ALCTS/CCS Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

These comments are derived from the Final Report of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) Task Force on the Review of ISBD (M). CC:DA approved the report of the Task Force with some modifications at its meeting on July 10, 2000, and directed that comments in the report on the proposed ISBD (M) revisions be transmitted to the ISBD Review Group Chair. The full report of the Task Force is available on the CC:DA Web site.


General Comments

Agreement and disagreement. For most of the elements in question, a majority of Task Force members were either in agreement with the ISBD Review Group that changes be made to the ISBD (M), or not. For eight elements we agreed with the optionality decision. For four elements we (a) either did not agree and recommended that the element in question remain mandatory or (b) alternatively, we recommended that an additional footnote be added if the element was to remain optional.

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, 2nd 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.

• 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.

The CC:DA ISBD (M) Task Force agrees with the ISBD Review Group report that the following eight areas of the ISBD (M) be made optional:

• 1.3   Parallel title. We agree; make this optional. We also agree with the ISBD 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.”

• 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 ISBD 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 ISBD 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 ISBD Review Group’s footnote recommendation, we would make a minor adjustment and clarification to the ISBD 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 ISBD 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 ISBD 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.

The CC:DA ISBD (M) Task Force either (a) did not agree with the ISBD Review Group report for following four areas, or (b) we recommend that if they are to remain optional, then an additional footnote be added.

• 1.4   Other title information. A majority of Task Force members believe that if this is to remain optional, 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 it is 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.

• 1.5   Statements of responsibility — subsequent statement. The Task Force recommended accepting the optionality of subsequent statements of responsibility, on the grounds that the recommendation is consistent with the basic record requirements in FRBR. However, it was pointed out during discussion by CC:DA that subsequent statements of responsibility are often of critical importance in identifying a manifestation or even an expression or a work. Consider the statement of responsibility “by Marcel Proust ; translated by C.K. Scott Moncrieff” or the difference between “Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra ; conducted by Leonard Bernstein” and “Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra ; conducted by Herbert von Karajan.” Therefore, CC:DA recommends that a footnote be added to 1.4 as follows. (The existing footnotes would subsequently need to be renumbered).

  Suggested REVISED text:

  1.5 Statements of responsibility — subsequent statement (optional) (3)

  (3). A subsequent statements of responsibility should be included in the basic record to the extent that it is essential to the accurate identification of the work, expression or manifestation.

• 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 revisers, 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.

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