----------------------------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]