Research results of the OLAC Research Grant awarded in 2016

Hartsock, Ralph

Lisius, Peter H.

English

Institutional Repository for Minnesota State University, Mankato

35 | P a g e   Research Grant Report Ralph Hartsock  Research Methods for Notes for Music Catalogers: Examples Illustrating RDA in the Online Bibliographic Record. The Second Edition. Authors: Ralph Hartsock, Peter Lisius.  Introduction Originally to be titled Annotations for Music Catalogers: Examples Illustrating RDA in the Online Bibliographic Record, this was to be a completely new edition, reflecting the terminology used in Bibliographic Framework version 1.0. Since newer versions of BIBFRAME have reverted to the term “Notes,” we chose to do the same here. This volume is thus the Second Edition to Notes for Music Catalogers. I sought another music cataloger for this edition, Peter Lisius. Peter has NACO experience and oriented toward the chapters that address works and expressions.  The authors acknowledge the support of their respective institutions, the University of North Texas and Kent State University. We also thank the On Line Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC) for the grant which allowed the authors to meet physically and exchange data. This was a vital and time-saving activity.  Literature Review Catalogers provide notes in order to express the content of a resource. These can assist the user in the differentiation of various works, expressions, manifestations, and items. Their presence is particularly important in music, a format requiring a higher degree of information than books. In 1962, Donald L. Foster published Notes Used on Music and Phonorecord Catalog Cards (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1962), as part of the Occasional papers of the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science. Published after several years of cataloging under pre-Paris Principle codes, examples were limited to those created by the Library of Congress, and presented without context.  In 1994, Ralph Hartsock published an edition compatible to the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2): Notes for Music Catalogers: Examples Illustrating AACR2 in the Online Bibliographic Record (Lake Crystal, Minnesota: Soldier Creek Press, 1994). AACR2 became available in 1978, and full usage began in 1981. Examples were also exclusively from Library of Congress bibliographic records, 1166 for scores, and 841 for sound recordings. Most examples were derived from LC records created during the late 1980s and early 1990s.  Resource Description and Access (RDA) has been available as the RDA Toolkit since 2010, and implemented by several libraries on March 31, 2013. Contrary to the environment during the 36 | P a g e   previous works of Foster and Hartsock, there has been a proliferation of cataloging. At the date of the proposal of this new book, the Library of Congress had cataloged hundreds of scores and books on musical topics according to RDA. The Library had cataloged very scant numbers of sound or video recordings according to RDA. Due to this, we selected bibliographic records from various leading institutions. These included those affiliated with institutions who provided instruction to the Music Library Association in its Pre-Conference, “Hit the Ground Running! RDA Training for Music Catalogers,” presented in San Jose, California, on February 27, 2013, and at other webinars. Even within this small group, practices vary.  Because RDA altered the nature of cataloging, Notes for Music Catalogers is not a revision, but rather, a re-conceptualization of previous works. Terminology used in the title of Foster’s work symbolizes an era when only two formats existed, music and phonorecords, conveyed via catalog cards. A semi-online condition surrounded the 1994 publication, but is now totally online, with RDF dominating.  Books featuring notes in monographic cataloging (books), such as that by Salinger and Zagon, have failed to bring out the myriad of unique types of annotations required to successfully identify various works, expressions, manifestations, and items of music, either printed in various notation schema, or as audio or visual recordings.  In the previous work, AACR2 prescribed an order of notes. There were cut and dry divisions among the formats: scores, sound recordings, visual materials, three-dimensional objects. The lines between these formats have blurred, due to technology. Some scores are issued as PDF files. Some digital sound recordings contain video files, while others are mounted on servers as streaming audio. Thus, a single manifestation can contain multiple content types, and require a variety of mediations.   Another byproduct of technology is that notes once located in the MARC 5XX are now spread throughout other machine-readable portions of the bibliographic record. This means that notes or annotations serve different ends than they did in the past. Most notes were constructed for human consumption alone. Today, many notes serve machine manipulation and sorting. Searchers as such will be able to select the instruments they are playing, the genre or form of music they seek, and a myriad of other strategies. As an example, the note “Compact disc” has migrated to the 347 $b, as “CD audio.”  The scope of this edition will be wider than merely the 5XX MARC fields. Thus, 34X MARC fields will be identified as well. It draws from elements in various noncontiguous chapters of RDA chapters:   Introduction  1: General Guidelines on Recording Attributes of Manifestations and Items  2: Identifying Manifestations and Items 37 | P a g e   3: Describing Carriers 4: Providing Acquisition and Access Information 6: Identifying Works and Expressions  7: Describing Content 25: Related Works 26: Related Expressions 27: Related Manifestations 28: Related Items Appendix A: ISBD punctuation  Appendix B: Full Bibliographic Records that reflect FRBR and WEMI order Appendix C: Glossary of terms  After the implementation of RDA, various interpretations of abbreviations (e.g., “min.” versus “minutes”), and capitalization (e.g., “staff notation” versus “Staff notation”) occurred. Because of this, and the time lag seen in previous works, a date for the earliest records used in this book is January 1, 2015. This allows nearly a two-year window between the date of RDA implementation by the Library of Congress and many MLA libraries.  The methodology for this publication is: 1) systematically examine online bibliographic records input after January 1, 2015; 2) arrange these examples in the order they would appear in RDA, in MARC format. Here we subdivide by format: scores, sound recordings, other formats; 3) Since RDA is agnostic to MARC or a specific metadata schema, annotations and explanations of these notes are more widespread than exhibited in the previous work by the author. For conformity and standardization, references are made to the Music Library Association’s Best Practices documents (MLA BP), and to Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging, Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS). This is further described in the Methods and Strategies section.  Access will be by RDA guideline number, with indexes for context and MARC. During manuscript preparation the authors were mindful of developments related to BibFrame. While the authors found that many libraries do not consider the order of notes as relevant, especially in the Linked Data environment, an appendix addresses the issues of ISBD punctuation, and creation of bibliographic data in WEMI order. Selected full records are presented here.  The audience for this is catalogers, both experienced music catalogers and those beginning to catalog music. This work will augment texts that treat RDA in general terms, by focusing on the nuances found in music.   During the analog age, content determined the format. Thus, audio recordings appeared on audio tapes, cassettes, or discs. Video recordings appeared on video tapes, videocassettes, and laser discs. Computer software was issued on magnetic tapes, cassettes, and floppy disks of varied textures and solidity. Each was an independent carrier. Meanwhile, filmstrips, and their accompanying audio disc or cassette, had to be synchronized, sometimes manually by the 38 | P a g e   operator. The digital age has brought us the interoperability of several content types occupying the same carrier: audio, video, text, games, computer files can be on one manifestation.  During the research process, we discovered that notes and bibliographic records used in this sample reflected the strategic planning initiatives of the contributing libraries for that specific period of time. Thus, we made further discovery for some notes not represented in the 2015 sampling, such as shape-note notation. We gathered records from outside the original sampling, including 2016 and 2017 inputs or beyond the seven original libraries, editing these to conform to MLA BP.  Not covered extensively in this study are the content type (RDA 6.9.1.3; MARC 336), media type (RDA 3.2.1.3; MARC 337), or the carrier type (RDA 3.3.1.3, MARC 338). These are presented in each example to illustrate usage and practice. When the manifestation in question needs further description, this is covered in Notes on the Carrier (RDA 3.21). Neither do we cover subjects, classification or authorized access points, including preferred titles (240; 7XX). Some of this data is stripped from the examples.  The lines of demarcation between notes and other descriptors has blurred with the introduction of RDA and possible developments in Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME). These records are at various stages of RDA evolution, and will therefore reflect certain MARC tags different from the current practices. We noticed, as many others have, that records described in RDA contain much more information than those of previous cataloging codes. The payoff for this extra space occupied by the data is greater granularity.  Methodology: Our Strategy 1. Designate a date for the first records we accept for the project, say January 1, 2015. Go until December 31, 2015, or we have sufficient examples for all rules.  2. Using Connexion, identify candidate records, from DLC and other institutions a. Use the 090 field to designate the applicable RDA rule and MARC tag we are using for an example: 2.17.2.3=500 (2):HMU would mean RDA 2.17.2.3 is the second 500 field, Harvard University input b. Multiple fields in the same record could be used, but the preference was to find more example records. 39 | P a g e     40 | P a g e     3. So that there is not a conflict of interest, Peter reviewed records input by the University of North Texas (INT)  4. Each author identified candidate records from various institutions. Those from DLC were be divided chronologically. Ralph took the odd months and Peter took the even months for the “Date created in MARC.”   5. Each author identified other institutions’ records that are valid to use, such as UMC (Peter), CGU (Peter), STF (Ralph), ENG (Ralph), HMU (Ralph). We aimed for originally cataloged records, but knew that many records are mergers.  6. Search strategy: in the boxes choose  Cataloging source: UMC Date created in MARC: 201502* Format: Sound recordings If too many records are retrieved this way, add more dates to Date created in MARC, such as 20150214 41 | P a g e    7. For current collection of examples, we both covered all rules.   Using the call number field (MARC 090), we sorted the records by RDA guideline number, giving us the similar type notes based on RDA.   Issues Arising from the project  For certain bibliographic records in Cyrillic or Asian languages, we discovered that the descriptive fields (100, 245, and 260) may be repeated, once in the original script, and then in Roman characters. Identical MARC tags were united by a bracket. We never found a suitable symbol in Microsoft Word to accommodate this feature of OCLC.  42 | P a g e     As RDA requires much more data than AACR2 or previous codes, we found it necessary to strip out 006,010, 040, 240, and all 7XX MARC tags.      43 | P a g e   Records no. 1 (OCLC 880682573) 007  s ǂb d ǂd c ǂe m ǂf m ǂg e ǂh n ǂi n ǂj m ǂk p ǂl l ǂm n ǂn e 040  STF ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc STF ǂd STF ǂd OCLCO ǂd STF 02800MMBST-84159 ǂb Music Matters 02800509999-79116-1-6 ǂb EMI Special Markets 02800BST 84159 ǂb Blue Note 0280084159 ǂb Blue Note 090  2.17.2.3=500(2):STF 1001 Hill, Andrew, ǂd 1931-2007, ǂe composer, ǂe instrumentalist. 24500Judgment! / ǂc all music by Andrew Hill. 250  Music Matters definitive Blue Note limited edition. 264 1New York : ǂb Blue Note Records, ǂc [2013] 264 2[Ventura, Calif.] : ǂb distributed by Music Matters 264 3Hollywood, Calif. : ǂb EMI Special Markets 264 4ǂc ©1964 300  2 audio discs : ǂb vinyl, analog, stereo, 45 rpm ; ǂc 12 in. 336  performed music ǂ2 rdacontent 337  audio ǂ2 rdamedia 338  audio disc ǂ2 rdacarrier 344  analog ǂb vinyl ǂc 45 rpm ǂd microgroove ǂg stereo 38201piano ǂn 1 ǂa vibraphone ǂn 1 ǂa double bass ǂd 1 ǂa drum set ǂn 1 ǂs 4 ǂ2 lcmpt 4900 [Blue Note, the definitive 45 rpm reissue series] 500  Blue Note BST 84159 (discs); 84159 (jacket); Music Matters MMBST-84159; EMI Special Markets 509999-79116-1-6. 500  Title from disc label. 5110 Andrew Hill, piano ; Bobby Hutcherson, vibes ; Richard Davis, bass ; Elvin Jones, drums. 500  Originally released in 1964 as Blue Note BST 84159. 500  Jacket and disc labels reproductions of the original release. 500  Notes from original release printed on container. 5050 Siete ocho -- Flea flop -- Yokada yokada -- Alfred -- Judgment -- Reconciliation.   44 | P a g e   Record no. 2 (OCLC 895895395)  007  s ǂb d ǂd f ǂe m ǂf n ǂg g ǂh n ǂi n ǂm e ǂn e 040  UMC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc UMC 024305024709160150 02802APR 6015 ǂb APR ǂq (container) 02800APR 6015 A ǂb APR ǂq (disc 1) 02800APR 6015 B ǂb APR ǂq (disc 2) 033201919---- ǂa 1927---- ǂb 3814 ǂc C2 033201940---- ǂa 1947---- ǂb 3804 ǂc N4 0410 ǂg eng 047  ft ǂa df ǂa mr ǂa nc ǂa mz ǂa sn ǂa tc ǂa rd 090  7.11=518s/*stumped*500(2)/7.16=500(3):UMC 24500Guiomar Novaes : ǂb The complete published 78-rpm recordings. 24630Complete published 78-rpm recordings 264 1[London] : ǂb APR, ǂc [2014] 264 4ǂc ℗2014  300  2 audio discs : ǂb CD audio ; ǂc 4 3/4 in. 336  performed music ǂb prm ǂ2 rdacontent 337  audio ǂb s ǂ2 rdamedia 338  audio disc ǂb sd ǂ2 rdacarrier 344  digital ǂg mono ǂ2 rda 347  audio file ǂb CD audio ǂ2 rda 38201piano ǂn 1 ǂs 1 ǂ2 lcmpt 500  Title from disc label. 5110 Guiomar Novaes, piano. 518  ǂ3 Disc 1 ǂo Recorded ǂd 1919-1927 ǂp Victor Talking Machine Company, Camden, New Jersey. 518  ǂ3 Disc 2 ǂo Recorded ǂd 1940-1947 ǂp Columbia Recording Corporation, New York. 500  Previously released from 1910s to 1940s as 78 rpm discs on Victor and Columbia. 500  Performer biographical notes by Jed Distler (11 pages : portraits) inserted in container.    45 | P a g e   References  Foster, Donald LeRoy. 1962. Notes Used on Music and Phonorecord Catalog Cards. Champaign: University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science.  Hartsock, Ralph. 1994. Notes for Music Catalogers: Examples Illustrating AACR 2 in the Online Bibliographic Record. Lake Crystal, Minn.: Soldier Creek Press.  “Hit the Ground Running! RDA Training for Music Catalogers,” Continuing Education Workshop, February 27, 2013, San Jose, California. (http://guides.library.cornell.edu/MLARDA2013)  Salinger, Florence A., and Eileen Zagon. 1985. Notes for Catalogers: A Sourcebook for Use with AACR 2. White Plains, N.Y.: Knowledge Industry Publications.                  

Research Methods for Notes for Music Catalogers: Examples Illustrating RDA in the Online Bibliographic Record

https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=olac-grants

Research Methods for Notes for Music Catalogers: Examples Illustrating RDA in the Online Bibliographic Record

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institutional Repository for Minnesota State University, Mankato