Thanks for getting this discussion started.  I've been applying 9.5B3
since Sept. 1, and I've been surveying librarians here at UHM about how
these  physical description statements should be worded.   So far, I've
only had e-journals (for which I'm using "v." in the 300$a), web sites
(I'm undecided between "1 website" or "1 web site" or "1 online
resource" or "1 Internet resource" (p.s., I hate having to capitalize
"Internet!"), and electronic documents (for which I've tentatively been
using statements like "1 electronic document (ix, 173 p.)").

I like the idea of expressing the file format or encoding in 300$b, e.g.
"col. ill., HTML file" as you've suggested here.

I'm not able to view the resource you are referring to here for some
reason, but I think I would like "1 PowerPoint presentation" in the
300$a if the resource really does behave like a powerpoint presentation
when you access it via WWW (which I assume it does).  When we use
conventional terminology for a physical carrier, we are instructed to
give trade names in a note (per 9.5B1 and 9.7B1b), as you of course
know, and that's the only thing that disturbs me about using one here
when describing a non-physical carrier.  Personally, I have no problem
with trade names in physical descriptions when the trade name is the
accepted conventional terminology.   "PowerPoint" (or "Powerpoint?")
certainly is the accepted conventional terminology for this, I would
say, and it's no less true when the powerpoint is converted to HTML for
web access, I would also argue.   If others object to using a trade name
in a 300 $a, then I guess my next choice would be "1 slide show" or
something to that effect.

I don't like  "53 slides" in this case.   I feel like the powerpoint
presentation (which presumably has a unifying title slide containing
much of the most important bibliographic data, etc.) is the basis of
description, not the slides exactly.  This is a difficult argument to
express (I know from trying to express it in our chapter 9 discussions),
and it's a fine point, and perhaps other disagree, but if the thing we
are describing is a unitary resource, I like the 300 $a to contain that
unitary term when possible.   I know we have plenty of exceptions to
that idea in AACR2 (the most notable probably in chapter 2, where we
don't give "book" in the 300 $a, but instead "p."), but I've always
thought that the tidiest SMDs are the ones that correspond exactly to
the unitary thing that is the basis of description and transcription.
For remote-access resources especially, I'm sure we don't want to go
down the road of describing the component parts of a web-based resource,
since the number of the component parts is so likely to change.  (I
realize that the number of slides in a powerpoint presentation is
probably not going to change.)

Anyway, that's my two cents, and I'm glad this discussion is started.
I'll look forward to hearing what others have to say about this and
other 9.5B3 situations as they arise.   This is quite a can of worms,
but I'm glad we've finally got it open!

Michael A. Chopey
Catalog Librarian
University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
Hamilton Library
2550 The Mall
Honolulu, HI  96822

E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: (808) 956-2765
Fax:     (808) 956-5968

Adam Schiff wrote:

> Hi folks,
> Here's an interesting question that I'd like to get some feedback from
> you
> on.  I'm wondering what you would record as a statement of extent if you
> were to catalog a PowerPoint presentation that's available online if you
> decided that you wanted to apply the optional rule at 9.5B3.  This isn't
> purely hypothetical.  Please have a look at the following resource:
> An atlas of anatomy for the American lobster, Homarus americanus
> I've thought of several options that could be taken if one wanted to give
> a physical description for this resource:
> If I use a term from subrule .5B of one of the chapters of part 1, then I
> think that I would consider this a graphic material made up of electronic
> slides:
> 53 slides : col., digital, HTML file
> Or would you simply consider it an electronic text?:
> 1 electronic text : col. ill., HTML file
> Or would you opt for a term in common usage, perhaps:
> 1 PowerPoint presentation : col. ill., HTML file
> Interestingly, this is a PowerPoint file that has been converted to an
> HTML presentation.  I originally thought I should use PowerPoint file
> instead of HTML file, but when you look at the URL and the underlying
> structure of the resource, it's made up of HTML files.
> Anyway, I'd love to hear how people might apply rule 9.5B3 to a resource
> like this.
> --Adam
> **************************************
> * Adam L. Schiff                     *
> * Principal Cataloger                *
> * University of Washington Libraries *
> * Box 352900                         *
> * Seattle, WA 98195-2900             *
> * (206) 543-8409                     *
> * (206) 685-8782 fax                 *
> * [log in to unmask]           *
> **************************************