CONSER and BIBCO
participants:
Your comments
are requested on the two topics below by cob
August 27, 2004. Please
send them to Judy Kuhagen in CPSO
(
[log in to unmask]).
#1: Should
there be a "PCC practice" decision for the following options in the 2004 Update
to AACR2?
6.5B1.
Option
added to use "a term in common usage" to give physical carrier's specific format
(e.g., "DVD-audio").
[LC won't be applying the optional provision of the
rule. FYI: MLA members did not support this option when it was
discussed by ALA's Committee for Cataloging: Description and
Access.]
7.5B1.
Option
added to use "a term in common usage" to give physical carrier's specific format
(e.g., "DVD-video").
[LC uses Archival Moving Image Materials, not AACR2
chapter 7, for its cataloging of moving image
materials.]
9.5B3.
Option added to give extent of remote access electronic resources. The
rule will go on to say that cataloger should use a term from subrule .5B of
appropriate chapter or use a term in common usage
(e.g., "1 photograph," "1
sound file," "6 remote-sensing images," "Web site").
New rules will give instructions (9.5B4) about recording the number of
files and/or the number of records/statements/bytes in area 5 or in a note and
instructions (9.5C3) about giving other details about the resource (e.g., file
types) in area 5 or in a note.
There have been postings recently on
CONSRLST about the possibility of BIBCO libraries creating monograph records for
conference publications and whether or not links should be given. The
guidelines for conference publications in the LCRI are the result of
negotiations/discussion about the cataloging of these resources at LC and with
cataloging/reference staff in other libraries. They acknowledge certain
situations where monograph records are preferred in order to give specific
information, describe when libraries may prefer to create serial records to make
efficient use of catalogers' time, and indicate that recataloging is not
encouraged (again to make efficient use of catalogers' time). The
guidelines were not intended to discourage flexibility in local libraries'
decisions; because there isn't a discrete BIBCO database, BIBCO participants are
more able to make such local decisions. The addition of the paragraph
would clarify the situation for BIBCO participants if those submitting comments
feel such a clarification is needed.