----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
See attached document.
 
 
CEO document contents:
The following comment concerning Proposal 95-9, 'Encoding of Digital
Maps in the USMARC Bibliographic Format', was recently sent to the
USMARC Discussion Group listserv.  Proposal 95-9 will be discussed by
MARBI on June 25 at ALA.  I thought 'map' catalogers who do not
subscribe to USMARC might be interested in Glenn's comment.  If you
have not seen the proposal, it is available on LC MARVEL.
 
Ellen Caplan, OCLC    Internet: [log in to unmask]
 
-------
 
I want to make a few comments about the "Discussion" section of
Proposal 95-9.
 
Over the past several years, it has become clear (in both format
integration discussions and in multiple versions discussions) that
AACR2 rule 0.24 --referred to somewhat obliquely in the third
paragraph of the "Discussion" -- is indeed "problematic".  One must be
careful, however, in reading that rule not to fall into the trap of
thinking that its focus is originals and their reproductions.  It's
easy to do that since the sole example in the first paragraph of the
rule involves microform reproductions.  I've found it helpful in my
own thinking to read the rule as if the sentences involving the
example weren't present ... that is,
 
    "It is a cardinal principle of the use of part I that the
    description of a physical item should be based in the first
    instance on the chapter dealing with the class of materials to
    which that item belongs. ... In short, the starting point for
    description is the physical form of the item in hand, not the
    original or any previous form in which the work has been
    published."
 
 
This view is, I think, supported by comments made by Ronald Hagler in
his _Where's that Rule?_ (Canadian Library Association, 1979).  Hagler
notes:
 
    "This integration of rules for all types of materials brings with
    it significant change from past practice for many of them, for
    which earlier rules had developed independently and even
    ideosyncratically [sic].  The most radical changes will be evident
    in the treatment of sound recordings, where the imprint, location
    of performer information, and main heading are all governed by
    different criteria than previously.  In the case of microforms
    which are reproductions of previously-existing material, AACR2
    represents a change to a pre-AACR1 practice in its requirement
    that the microform itself, not the reproduced original, be the
    object principally described, with the other 'noted" [cf. Part I,
    Introduction, section 0.24].
 
    "This microform issue is closely related to another issue in
    describing sound recordings, namely should the recording be the
    basis for description, or the work recorded?  In fact, both of
    these questions, and others involved in code revision, may be
    described as part of the very general question of purpose:  Should
    cataloguing rules facilitate the description of the contents of a
    collection, or should they facilitate the description of published
    objects?  Both purposes are worthy, but often tend to run at
    cross-purposes with each other.  The objects of 'Universal
    Bibliographic Control' and those of the major nation
    bibliographies lean toward the latter.  Previously cataloguing
    codes had leaned toward the former, and AACR2 attempts to make
    allowances for both, partly in the provision of options. ..."
    (Hagler, p. 9)
 
This reading of AACR2 0.24 seems also to be consistent with the
"scope" rule for cartographic materials (rule 3.0A1), the last
sentence of which reads:
 
    "For items falling within the scope of other chapters but
    presenting cartographic information (e.g., some wall charts, some
    playing cards), consult the rules of this chapter in conjunction
    with those of the chapter appropriate to the item."
 
One could easily extend that "e.g." list to include "... some
videodiscs, some slides, some computer files, some microforms ..."
 
Throughout the Format Integration process, I've tried to take the
perspective that AACR2 has, from the beginning, allowed the cataloger
to combine rules from various chapters in order to describe materials
that embody multiple characteristics (rules 0.23, 0.24, etc.) and
that, with the full implementation of Format Integration, the USMARC
format will support the complete encoding of those descriptions.  That
perspective, combined with the AACR2 emphasis on the physical form of
the item in hand as the basis for the description, leads one to a
different conclusion than the one embodied in this proposal.
 
Underlying this specific proposal for cartographic materials is a much
broader one involving all kinds of information that is increasingly
published/distributed/available in digital form and how that
information is handled in AACR2 and the USMARC Bibliographic Format.
If we're to avoid a return to the "independent and even idiosyncratic"
past that Ronald Hagler described, the discussion must also be much
broader than that afforded by a MARBI meeting.
 
Glenn Patton, OCLC  Internet: [log in to unmask]