Task Force on the Review of ISBD(M)

CC:DA/TF/ISBD(M)/2000/3/Jizba follow-up

May 15, 2001

Comments on the World-Wide Review of ISBD (M), 2001 Revision for CC:DA consideration

By Laurel Jizba

Historical background.   The original Task Force concentrated on only those elements of bibliographic information addressed in the IFLA Review Group’s ISBD (M) report and agreed to skip any ISBD (M) elements, or topics, that the IFLA report did not address. For nine (9) elements we agreed with the optionality decision. For three (3) elements we (a) either did not agree, recommending 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. An issue was how to interpret the meaning and significance of the “optionality” of rules within the ISBD (M). Task Force members expressed differing views on “optionality,” with respect to other standards, text vs. footnote, and the meaning of mandatory. 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. Some elements in chapter 2 only partially correspond to the ISBD (M), and the ISBD (M) in 2000 left out much of chapter 2’s elemental correspondences with other chapters (However, it is interesting to note that non-print elements have been introduced in “dimensions” with the 2001 version.)

2001 ISBD (M) compared with the CC:DA TF 2000 recommendations.

• 1.3.1 Parallel title. ISBD (M) 2001 and CC:DA TF 2000 concur: make it optional. 2001 revision says: “may be transcribed.” 2nd sentence: “Parallel titles are 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.” (*Interesting language change from 2000 proposal.)

• 1.4 Other title information. ISBD (M) 2001 and CC:DA TF 2000 concur: this remains mandatory. In addition, a qualifying statement adds that “Additional other title information is included to the extent that it is essential to accurate identification or is considered important to the users of the catalogue.”

• 1.5.1 Statements of responsibility. CC:DA did not deal with this per se: we dealt with Statements of responsibility — subsequent statements. It is interesting to note the use of the phrase “can be given” here, which skirts the mandatory issue.

• 1.5.1. With respect to subsequent statements of responsibility, ISBD (M) 2001 and CC:DA TF 2000 concur: make it optional. Plus, they accepted our recommendation to add a phrase very similar to our recommended sentence, which was: “Subsequent statements of responsibility are included to the extent that they are essential to accurate identification or are considered important to the users of the catalogue.”

• “Statements of responsibility relating to the edition.” We had objected to making optional. However, this appears to be a reasonable compromise. What ISBD(M) 2001 does is to refer back to 1.5.1, thereby making it optional with the additional “inclusionary” caveat: “Subsequent statements of responsibility are included to the extent that they are essential to accurate identification or are considered important to the users of the catalogue.” In any event we had noted that this element is not optional in the FRBR.

• 5.2 Illustration statement. ISBD (M) 2001 and CC:DA TF 2000 concur: make it optional.

• 5.3 Dimensions. ISBD (M) and CC:DA TF 2000 disagree: this was made optional, and a majority of Task Force members wished this to remain mandatory. It is not optional in the FRBR. Dimensions are key to special collections books and key to distinguishing between manifestations.

  It’s interesting to note that a qualifying sentence was added with regard to making it mandatory only for titles needing playback equipment (diskettes, cassettes), which is a departure in that non-print elements have been introduced for the first time (this was not in the 1987 version).

• 6.2 Parallel titles of series or sub-series. ISBD (M) 2001 and CC:DA TF 2000 concur: make it optional.

• 6.4 Statements of responsibility relating to the series or sub-series. ISBD (M) and CC:DA TF 2000 disagree: this was made mandatory when generic terms comprise the title proper of the series or sub-series, although it is optional in other cases. A majority of Task Force members agreed to make the whole thing optional — we had not considered the case of “generic” terms comprising the title proper of the series or sub-series.

• 7.1.2 Notes on the nature, scope, literary form, purpose or language of the publication. ISBD (M) 2001 and CC:DA TF 2000 concur: make it optional. Plus, the ISBD (M) 2001 includes our suggestions of adding “literary” to form and “on the form” as an aid to comprehension.

• 7.2. Notes on the edition area and the bibliographic history of the publication. ISBD (M) 2001 and CC:DA TF 2000 concur: make it optional.

• 8.3 Terms of availability. ISBD (M) 2001 and CC:DA TF 2000 concur: make it optional.

Next steps.   CC:DA needs to consider the above and decide whether or not to comment again, either via another Task Force, or a reconstituted Task Force, or by simply forwarding this report or another report along these lines. It would appear that there is always some merit in continuing the dialogue between IFLA’s ISBD Review Group and CC:DA by giving feedback when IFLA has requested such feedback, however lesser or greater the commentary.