University of California
Peer Reviewed
Title:
What is a Work? Part 3, The Anglo-American Cataloging Codes, Continued.
Author:
Yee, Martha M, University of California, Los Angeles
Publication Date:
01-01-1995
Publication Info:
Postprints, UC Los Angeles
Permalink:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4tv7g3hv
Additional Info:
http://www.HaworthPress.com
Original Citation:
“What is a Work? Part 3, The Anglo-American Cataloging Codes, Continued.” Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly 1995; 20:1:25-45.
Keywords:
Anglo-American Cataloging Codes, AACR, AACR2, same work with different appendages,
illustrated works, music with text, texts with commentary and/or biographical/critical material,
scholia, separately published parts of a work produced by the exercise of several different
functions, appendages to a work published separately, commentaries without text, concordances,
continuations, indexes, sequels, supplements, change in title of a work
Abstract:
Anglo-American codes are examined to determine the implicit or acting concept of work in each,
in order to trace the development of our current implicit concept of work, as embodied in AACR2R.
The following conditions are examined, using comparison tables: 1) same work with different
appendages (illustrated works, music with text, texts with commentary and/or biographical/critical
material, scholia); 2) separately published parts of a work produced by the exercise of several
different functions; 3) appendages to a work published separately (commentaries without text,
concordances, continuations, indexes, sequels, supplements); 4) change in title of a work. A trend
away from the collocation of the editions of a work called for by the second objective of the catalog
is identified. It is suggested that this tendency stems from failure to take advantage of newer
technologies for building catalogs.
Martha M. Yee
April 1994 draft
WHAT IS A WORK?:
PART 3, THE ANGLO-AMERICAN CATALOGING CODES, CONTINUED
ABSTRACT
Anglo-American codes are examined to determine the implicit or acting concept of work in
each, in order to trace the development of our current implicit concept of work, as embodied
in AACR2R. The following conditions are examined, using comparison tables: 1) same
work with different appendages (illustrated works, music with text, texts with commentary
and/or biographical/critical material, scholia); 2) separately published parts of a work
produced by the exercise of several different functions; 3) appendages to a work published
separately (commentaries without text, concordances, continuations, indexes, sequels,
supplements); 4) change in title of a work. A trend away from the collocation of the
editions of a work called for by the second objective of the catalog is identified. It is
suggested that this tendency stems from failure to take advantage of newer technologies for
building catalogs.
2
WHAT IS A WORK?:
PART 3, THE ANGLO-AMERICAN CATALOGING CODES, CONTINUED
In Part 2, we examined the way the condition of contraction of a work, and the
condition of change in substance of a work have been handled by Anglo-American
cataloging codes, in order to try to conceptualize the implicit or acting definitions of work in
each code. In Part 3, we will examine the following conditions: 1) same work with
different appendages; 2) separately published parts of a work produced by the exercise of
several different functions; 3) appendages to a work published separately; and 4) change in
title of a work.
a. Same work with different appendages: illustrated works
and music with text
It can be seen from the following two tables, that Anglo-American codes have consistently
treated 1) the text as the work, which does not become a new work when issued with
illustrations, and 2) the music as the work, which does not become a new work when issued
with different texts.
3
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONDITION: Same work with different appendages
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TYPE: Illustrated texts
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
Cutter 1-4 x When the illustrations
form a very
important part of a
work, make full entry
under both author of
the text and designer
of the plates.
Cutter 4 x In a card catalog,
consider the entry
under the writer of
the text the main
entry.
Linderfelt x Same work unless
illustrations are the
chief feature of the
book.*
1908 rules x Same work unless
illustrations are the
chief feature.*
Vatican x Same work unless the
(1938) illustrations form
the chief part of the
book.*
1941 rules x Same work when the
work has been independently
written.**
1949 rules x Same as 1941 rules.**
CCR 1960 x An illustrated edition
of a work is
considered the same
work.
AACR1 x A work for which an
artist has provided
illustrations is entered
under author.**
4
AACR2 x Same as AACR1.**
AACR2R x Same as AACR1.**
*NOTE: It is presumed that the text of a work in which the illustrations are the chief feature would rarely be republished
with different illustrations or with no illustrations; therefore these rules are considered to represent a concept of two editions
of the same text with different illustrations as the same work.
**NOTE: These codes have rules for entry of works produced by the collaboration of artists and writers of text, as well as for
entry of reproductions of works of art with text, which apply the criterion of predominance for determining entry. It is
presumed that it is rare for the textual parts of such works to go into multiple editions with different illustrations or with no
illustrations; therefore these rules are considered to conceptualize as the same work two editions of the same text with
different illustrations or with no illustrations.
5
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONDITION: Same work with different appendages
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TYPE: Music with text
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
Jewett x
Cutter 1-4 x Musical works entered
doubly under the
author of the words
and the composer of
the music.
Cutter 4 x In a card catalog,
the composer of the
music will be considered
the main entry.
1908 rules x Same as musical work
without text.
Prussian x Same as musical work
Inst. without text.
(1908)
Vatican x Same as musical work
(1938) without text.
1941 rules x Same as musical work
without text.
1949 rules x Same as musical work
without text.
AACR1 x Same as musical work
without text.
AACR2 x Same as musical work
without text.
AACR2R x Same as musical work
without text.
b. Same work with different appendages: text with commentary
and/or biographical/critical material; scholia
6
Until the turn of the century, a text with commentary was automatically considered a
manifestation of the work without commentary. The ALA rules of 1902 seem to have
introduced the idea that the commentary could become so predominant over the text as to
constitute a new work. Evident among other criteria for determining when the text with
commentary is a new work is the criterion of representation.
7
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONDITION: Same work with different appendages
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TYPE: Text with commentary and/or biographical/critical material; scholia.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
Panizzi x
Jewett x
Cutter 1-3 x Double entry under
both author of text
and commentator if
title is in form
Commentary on XYZ and
not XYZ with a commentary.
Cutter 4 x Mode of printing of
text used in decision
as to predominance;
same work if text
predominates.
LA 1883 x
ALA con- x Same as Cutter 1-3.
densed
1889
Linderfelt x
Dewey 1890 x
ALA 1902 x Typographical disposition
of text, and,
in doubtful cases,
title page representation,
used to
determine predominance;
same work if
text predominant.
ALA 1904 x Same as 1902.
1908 rules x Typographical disposition;
same work if
text predominant.
8
Prussian x
Inst.
(1908)
Vatican x Same work unless
(1938) commentary is of
special importance
because of extent or
form of presentation
and text is in smaller
type at foot of
page or below commentary
or is given in
part only.
Bodleian x Same work unless text
1939 is subordinate to
commentary as shown
by typographical disposition
or when emphasis
is plainly on
commentary.
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
1941 rules x Same work unless text
is obviously subordinate
to commentary
as shown by typographical
disposition or
when printed in fragments
only, or by intent
of the author or
publisher the emphasis
is plainly on the
commentary. LC practice:
same work when
text printed solid at
beginning or end of
book or across top or
bottom of pages.
1949 rules x Same work unless text
partial or fragmentary
or obviously
subordinate based on
typographical disposition
or emphasis
given by author or
publisher.
CCR 1960 x
9
AACR1 x Text with biog./crit.
material is diff.
work if person responsible
for biog./
crit. mat. is represented
as author,
same work if person
is represented as
editor. In case of
doubt, one named
first is author.
Text with commentary
is same work if represented
on title
page as edition of
the work, or prefatory
material indicates
primary purpose
is to provide an edition
of the work, or
text is more extensive
than commentary,
or commentary is typographically
subordinate.
Diff. work
if presented on title
page as commentary,
or prefatory material
indicates primary
purpose is to provide
a commentary, or
commentary is more
extensive than text,
or text is typographically
subordinate.
10
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
AACR2 x Commentary: Same
work if chief
source presents as
edition of original
work; diff. work if
chief source presents
as commentary.
If chief source ambiguous,
decide
based on prefatory
material, typographic
presentation, relative
extent; in case
of doubt, same work.
Text with biog./crit.
mat.: same work if
biographer/critic represented
as editor
or compiler; diff.
work if represented
in chief source as a
biog./crit. work.
AACR2R x Same as AACR2.
c. Separately published parts of a work produced by the
exercise of several different functions
It could perhaps be argued that there has been a tendency in the 20th Century to marry
various art forms in works which exhibit the work of more than one creator. The ultimate
example of this is the film, which routinely exhibits the work of directors, writers, film
editors, photographers, musicians, artists and performers. All of these functions can be
studied separately, and many of the products of these functions can be separated from the
work and published separately, e.g. the sound track or the script. As the following tables
demonstrate, the trend is to consider such separately published parts as different related
works.
11
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONDITION: Parts of a work produced by exercise of several different
functions, such parts published separately._________________________________________________________________
TYPE: Text published separately from music (librettos)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
1908 rules x
Prussian x
Inst.
(1908)
Vatican x
(1938)
1941 rules x Libretto is same
work unless there is
no mention of composer
or performance.
1949 rules x Libretto is same
work unless there is
no ascertainable
connection between
the text and a particular
composer or
performance.
AACR1 x Libretto is same
work unless it is
published as a
literary work or
without reference to
a particular musical
setting. Option:
Libretto is different
work.
AACR2 x Libretto is different
work. Option:
libretto is same
work unless published
without reference
to its musical
setting.
AACR2R Same as AACR2.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12
CONDITION: Parts of a work produced by exercise of several different
functions, such parts published separately._________________________________________________________________
TYPE: Choreographies, illustrations published separately, incidental music
to dramatic works, scripts___________________________________________________________________________________
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
Vatican x Illustrations to a
(1938) work published separately.
1941 rules x Illustrations published
separately;
incidental music.
13
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
1949 rules x Choreography, illustrations,
incidental
music, scenarios for
ballets, pantomimes
or other dance compositions
are all diff.
works. Movie scripts
are the same work as
the movie. Radio
scripts are diff.
works from the program
unless issued
as a collection of
scripts for a single
program, or unless
no author is named.
RDC. Pic- x Motion picture
tures, 1959 stills, same work as
motion picture.
AACR1 x Illustrations published
separately,
incidental music,
motion picture
stills. Scenarios,
choreographies, radio
and film scripts
covered under single
rule for “Related
works.”
AACR2 x Illustrations published
separately. Incidental
music, scenarios, choreographies,
radio and film
scripts covered under
single rule for “Related
works.” No more special
rule for motion picture
stills.
AACR2R x Same as AACR2.
d. Appendages to a work published separately: commentaries
14
without text, concordances, continuations,
indexes, sequels, supplements, etc.
These have tended from the beginning to be treated as different, related works, with some
interesting exceptions, as shown by the following table, notably the practice in English book
catalogs of placing all of these with the entry for the work to which they relate, and, until
AACR1, the use of dashed-on entries for continuations, appendixes, supplements and
indexes. In AACR1, such works continued to be given the same main entry as the work to
which they related if the former had dependent titles, but with AACR2, all are treated as
different related works.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONDITION: Appendages to a work published separately
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TYPE: Commentaries without text, concordances, continuations, indexes,
sequels, supplements, etc.___________________________________________________________________________________
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
Panizzi x Commentary without
text. Works not
written by the person
under whose name they
are to be catalogued
according to the
foregoing rules, to
be entered alphabetically
as an appendix
to the works of the
author.
Jewett x Commentary without
text.
Cutter 1-4 x Continuation, index,
concordance entered
under both own author
and author of work
continued, indexed
or concorded. Entry
under the author
concorded was to be
15
regarded as a subject-
entry, however.
LA 1883 x Commentaries without
text.
Bodleian x Commentaries without
1889 the text, lexicons,
indexes and concordances,
dissertations,
treatises,
imitations, biographies,
bibliographies,
all
arranged with the
works of an author.
Biographies entered
under the subjects
of them as well as
under the authors.
Wheatley x Concordances are
usually placed under
the headings of the
works to which they
relate.
16
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
Linderfelt x Concordances, lexicons,
commentary
without text, and
continuations in
the form of an independent
work with
separate title are
different works.
The index to a work
should be entered
with such work.
Dewey 1890 x Commentary without
text.
1908 rules x Thematic catalog
entered as work of
the composer, and
index added as a
dashed on entry with
the work to which it
belongs. Concordance
and continuation
in the form of
an independent work
with separate title
are different works.
Prussian x Concordances, and
Inst. continuations are
(1908) different works.
Indexes, repertories
and the like are put
under the title of
the work to which
they relate, unless
the work has many
editions, and the
index does not belong
to a particular one.
Vatican x Commentaries,
(1938) scholia, concordances,
and continuations,
appendixes
or supplements which
are entirely separate
and independent works
are treated as dif17
ferent works. Other
continuations, appendixes
or supplements
are entered under the
same main entry word
as the original work.
Indexes to an individual
work are
entered with the
work.
Bodleian x Commentaries, concor-
1939 dances.
18
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
1941 rules x Continuation in the
form of an independent
work with author
and title differing
from that of the original
is diff. work.
Sequels and concordances
are different
works. Dashed on
entries used to enter
a continuation or
supplement not independent
of the work
to which it belongs
(usually, but not
necessarily, by the
same author), or an
index to a particular
work with the work.
1949 rules x Same as 1941 rules.
CCR 1956 x A work intended as an
auxiliary, supplementary
or subsidiary
part of another work
is entered under the
author or title of
the other work or is
added on the entry of
that work.
CCR 1958 x A work represented as
a supplement to or as
a part of another
work, without a title
of its own, is included
in the entry
of the other work,
but if it has a distinct
title, it is
entered as a separate
work.
CCR 1960 x A work which continues,
supplements
or otherwise relates
to another work is
treated as the same
19
work if it has the
same author as the
other work or if both
are entered under
title, and if it
does not have an
individual title;
otherwise, different
work.
CCR 1961 x Same as above; an
index to the text of
a particular publication
is entered with
the text.
20
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
AACR1 x Same work if title
indistinctive and
dependent and it
falls into one of
three categories:
1) auxiliary work
the use of which is
dependent on one particular
edition of
the main work; 2)
supplement that is
a continuation of
the main work, except
a supplement by
a different author
that takes the form
of an independent
work; 3) subseries
or supplement of
serial.
AACR2 x
AACR2R x
e. Change in title of work
As can be seen below, a change in title can have the effect of causing two manifestations of
the same work to be treated as two different works. In the first table below, the rules
referred to are those for uniform titles. For this table, the operational definition used for
`same work’ and `different work’ is different from that used in all the other tables above.
For this table, two items are considered to have been treated as different works if they are
given main entries which differ in either author or title. In other words, in this table, if two
manifestations of the same work entered under author are not given a uniform title when a
change in title has taken place, they are considered to have been treated as two different
works. This approach was taken in the first table because it was felt that it would more
21
clearly illustrate the differences among the codes described.
The second table demonstrates that with the advent of successive entry, there has been a
tendency toward considering a change in serial title to constitute the creation of a new work.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONDITION: Change in title of work
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TYPE: Monographs
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
Bodleian, x Editions of a work
1674 entered under author
kept together regardless
of change in
title. Editions of
anonymous works not
kept together.
Panizzi x Editions of a work
entered under author
kept together regardless
of change of
title. Editions of
works entered under
title kept together
only for Bible.
Jewett x Same as Panizzi, plus
translations of
works entered under
title treated as
same work as original.
Cutter 1 x Same as Panizzi.
Cutter 2-4 x
LA 1883 x Same as Panizzi,
with addition of
other sacred books
to the Bible.
ALA 1889 x Same as LA 1883.
22
Bodleian x Same as Panizzi.
1889
Linderfelt x Same work unless
revised, in which
case different work.
Dewey 1890 x Different work unless
it is a sacred work,
or an anonymous
classic.
ALA 1902 x Same as Dewey.
ALA 1904 x Same as Dewey.
1908 rules x Same as Dewey. At
LC, however, filing
titles were used to
keep translations
entered under author
with the originals.
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
Prussian x Same as Linderfelt.
Inst.
(1908)
Fellows x Optionally, same
(1922) work if author is
voluminous; also
same work if sacred
book or anonymous
classic.
Vatican x Same as Fellows.
(1938)
Bodleian x Same work if entered
1939 under author, or if
sacred book or anonymous
classic.
1941 rules x Same as Dewey. At
LC, however, filing
titles were used to
keep translations
entered under author
with the originals.
1949 rules x Same as 1941 rules.
CCR 1956 x
23
CCR 1958 x
CCR 1960 x
CCR 1961 x Optional, but if option
followed, all
are same work.
AACR1 x Optional. Even if
option followed, not
same work if revised.
AACR2 x Optional. Even if
option followed, not
same work if revised
in the same language.
AACR2R x Same as AACR2.
24
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONDITION: Change in title of work
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TYPE: Serials
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
Jewett x Latest entry.
Cutter 1-4 x Earliest entry or
successive entry;
choice left to
catalogers. In the
4th ed., earliest
entry is recommended
when volume numbering
continues through
two or more sets.
Linderfelt x Successive entry.
Dewey 1890 x Earliest entry.
ALA 1902 x LC rule: latest
entry.
ALA 1904 x Same as 1902.
1908 rules x Latest entry unless
change of title is
accompanied by new
volume numbering, in
which case, successive
entry.
1
Prussian x Earliest entry unless
Inst. change of title is
(1908) accompanied by new
volume numbering, in
which case, successive
entry.
Fellows x Indicates all the
1 A merger of two or more titles always resulted in successive entries, even if the volume
numbering continued that of one or all the previous titles. Splits of titles could be cataloged on a
single latest entry record, provided they involved designated parts or sections like ’1′ and ’2′ or ‘A’
and ‘B’; when that was not the case (a minority of titles), successive entry had to be used, even if the
“new” publications showed the same frequency and perfectly parallel numbering systems.
25
(1922) above options without
recommending one.
Vatican x Same as 1908 rules.
(1938)
Bodleian x Successive entry.
1939
1941 rules x Same as 1908 rules.
1949 rules x Same as 1908 rules.
CCR 1956 x Successive entry.
CCR 1958 x Successive entry.
26
CODE: SAME WORK DIFF. WORK DECISION CRITERIA_____
CCR 1961 x Successive entry.
Optionally, a serial
which has ceased may
be given latest
entry.
ICCP x Successive entry.
AACR1 x Successive entry.
AACR2 x Successive entry.
AACR2R x Successive entry.
Between AACR2 and
AACR2R, rules for
when the title has
changed were revised
to allow for more and
more variation in the
title to occur without
change considered to
have occurre
KEY:
Panizzi Panizzi’s 91 Rules. In: Brault, Nancy. The Great Debate on Panizzi’s Rules in 1847-1849. Los Angeles:
The School of Library Service and the University Library, 1972.
Jewett Jewett, Charles Coffin. “On the Construction of Catalogs.” 2nd ed. 1853. In: Charles Coffin Jewett and
American Librarianship, 1841-1868. Ed. by Michael H. Harris. Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1975.
131-155.
Cutter1 Cutter, Charles A. “Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalogue.” In: Public Libraries in the United States of
America: Their History, Condition and Management: Special Report, Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Education. Part II. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1876. 3-89.
Cutter2 Cutter, Charles A. Rules for a Dictionary Catalog. 2nd ed. with corrections and additions. Special Report
on
Public Libraries (U.S. Bureau of Education) 2. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1889.
Cutter3 Cutter, Charles A. Rules for a Dictionary Catalog. 3rd ed. with corrections and additions and an
alphabetical
index. Special Report on Public Libraries (U.S. Bureau of Education) 2. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off.,
1891.
Cutter4 Cutter, Charles A. Rules for a Dictionary Catalog. 4th ed., rewritten. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off.,
1904.
LA 1883 Library Association of the United Kingdom. “Cataloguing Rules of the Library Association of the United
Kingdom (as revised at Liverpool, 1883).” Library Chronicle 2 (1885): 25-28.
Bodleian 1889 Appendix I in: Cutter, Charles A. Rules for a Dictionary Catalog. 2nd ed. with corrections and additions.
Special Report on Public Libraries (U.S. Bureau of Education) 2. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1889.
ALA 1889 Appendix I in: Cutter, Charles A. Rules for a Dictionary Catalog. 2nd ed. with corrections and additions.
Special Report on Public Libraries (U.S. Bureau of Education) 2. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1889.
Wheatley Wheatley, H.B. How to catalogue a library. London: Stock, 1889.
Linderfelt Linderfelt, Klas August. Eclectic Card Catalog Rules. Boston: Charles A. Cutter, 1890.
27
Dewey 1890 Dewey, Melvil. Library School Card Catalog Rules. 3rd ed. rev. Boston: Library Bureau, 1890.
ALA 1902 American Library Association. Advisory Catalog Committee. Condensed Rules for an Author and Title
Catalog. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1902.
ALA 1904 American Library Association. Advisory Catalog Committee. Condensed Rules for an Author and Title
Catalog. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1904.
1908 rules American Library Association. Catalog Rules: Author and Title Entries. American ed. Boston, Mass.:
American Library Association, Publishing Board, 1908.
Prussian Inst. The Prussian Instructions: Rules for the Alphabetical Catalogs of the Prussian Libraries. Transl. from the
2nd
(1908) ed. with an introd. and notes by Andrew D. Osborn. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press,
1938.
Fellows (1922) Fellows, Dorcas. Cataloging Rules with Explanations and Illustrations. 2nd ed., rev. and enl. New York:
H.W.
Wilson, 1922.
Vatican (1938) Vatican Library. Rules for the Catalog of Printed Books. Transl. from the 2nd Italian ed. by Thomas J.
Shanahan et al., ed., Wyllis E. Wright. Chicago: American Library Association, 1948.
Bodleian 1939 Bodleian Library. Cataloguing Rules. Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1939.
1941 rules American Library Association. Catalog Code Revision Committee. A.L.A. Catalog Rules: Author and Title
Entries. Prelim. American 2nd ed. Chicago: American Library Association, 1941.
1949 rules American Library Association. Division of Cataloging and Classification. A.L.A. Cataloging Rules for
Author
and Title Entries. 2nd ed. ed. by Clara Beetle. Chicago: American Library Association, 1949.
RDC, motion Library of Congress. Descriptive Cataloging Division. Rules
pictures, for Descriptive Cataloging in the Library of Congress. Motion
1953 Pictures and Filmstrips. 2nd prelim. ed. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Descriptive Cataloging
Division, 1953.
RDC, phono- Library of Congress. Descriptive Cataloging Division. Rules
records, for Descriptive Cataloging in the Library of Congress. Phono-
1964 records. 2nd prelim. ed. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Descriptive Cataloging Division, 1964.
RDC, pic- Library of Congress. Descriptive Cataloging Division. Rules
tures, for Descriptive Cataloging in the Library of Congress. Pic-
1959 tures, Designs and Other Two-dimensional Representations.
Prelim. ed. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Descriptive Cataloging Division, 1959.
CCR 1956 Lubetzky, Seymour. Code for Cataloging: Authors and Titles. Rev. ed., partial draft. American Library
Association, Code Revision Committee, Dec. 1956.
CCR 1958 Lubetzky, Seymour. Code of Cataloging Rules: Bibliographic Entry and Description: a Partial and
Tentative
Draft for a New Edition of Bibliographic Cataloging Rules Prepared for the Catalog Code Revision
Committee. Chicago: American Library Association, Catalog Code Revision Committee, June, 1958.
CCR 1960 Lubetzky, Seymour. Code of Cataloging Rules: Author and Title Entry. an unfinished draft. Chicago:
American
Library Association, 1960.
CCR 1961 Lubetzky, Seymour. Code of Cataloging Rules: Author and Title Entry: Additions, Revisions and Changes
Prepared in Light of Discussions of the March 1960 Draft for Consideration of the Catalog Code Revision
Committee. Chicago: American Library Association, Sept. 1961.
AACR1 Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. North American text. Chicago: American Library Association, 1967.
AACR1, Chap. 12 Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. North American text. Chapter 12. Chicago: American Library
Association,
1975.
28
AACR2 Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. 2nd ed. Chicago: American Library Association, 1978.
AACR2R Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. 2nd ed., 1988 Revision. Chicago: American Library Association, 1988.
SUMMARY
When most catalogs were book catalogs, the catalog editor could categorize and arrange
the various editions of a work on a page in such a way they could be readily scanned, and
the editor could do this without being dependent on the alphabet for the categorization and
arrangement. The new technology represented by the card catalog was immediately
embraced because it allowed continuous updating of the catalog and thus more timely
inclusion of the most recent acquisitions, which, of course, were often those most in
demand. However, in adopting this new technology and throwing out the old, a baby went
out with the bath water–no longer could editions be arranged in the most scannable and
useful order, regardless of alphabetic heading. In order to get a good scannable collocation,
manipulation of alphabetic headings was necessary. The Library of Congress did this
internally, but did not distribute its uniform titles, and the codes that contained uniform title
rules always made them optional. Thus, in practice, most card catalogs did not create
optimal collocations of the editions of multiple-edition works.
It can be seen from the above examination of Anglo-American cataloging codes that the
trend in Anglo-American cataloging practice has been away from the collocation of the
editions of a work called for by the second objective. Whenever change in practice takes
place, it leads to less collocation. AACR2, with its movement toward more title main
entries, exacerbates this trend, since uniform title main entry to collocate editions of a work
entered under title is an option in AACR2, and one that is little followed.
It is probable that one reason for this trend is the high cost of cataloging and the fear that
choice of main entry in order to collocate editions uses precious cataloger time. As a
29
working cataloger, I suspect that choice of main entry takes much less time than the
authority work necessary to sort out two authors with the same name. The trend toward title
main entry puts more of a burden on the title to bear the whole weight of identifying and
distinguishing this work from others of the same title; when both author and title were used
to identify the work and create a collocation point at the author main entry (or author-title
main entry, depending on whether optional uniform titles were used), conflict was much
less frequent. However, in any case, the larger our catalogs become, the weaker alphabetdependent
matching is as a tool to create collocation–in other words, the more likely
conflicts are to occur.
We now are well into converting to a new technology for cataloging–the online catalog.
We have been criticized for carrying old practices into this new technology without
examining them. However, the usual old practice that is criticized is that of the display of a
single record in card format; actually, the card format was a rather elegant display and much
more readily scannable than the displays labelled with
arcane bibliographic terms that are proposed to replace them,2 not to mention the
usual single record screen display that begins with
information about the computer system that has nothing to do
with the relationship of that record to others in the
database. The old practice that might be fruitfully examined
is the dependence on the alphabet for arrangement of records.
2 For example, ‘Material:’, ‘Description:’ or ‘Collation:’ in front of the physical description; while
users know that books have pages and know terms like ‘videocassettes, they don’t have common
terms for areas of our descriptions; adding words with which they aren’t familiar clutters up the
display and probably confuses more than helps them. See the following for examples of labelled
displays:
Walt Crawford, Lennie Stovel and Kathleen Bales, Bibliographic Displays in the Online Catalog
(New York: Knowledge Industry Pubs., 1986)
Walt Crawford, Patron Access: Issues for Online Catalogs (Boston, Mass.: G.K. Hall, 1987)
30
The current technology for collocation, carried over
from card catalogs, has two major disadvantages. First, the
fundamental alphabetical ordering, discussed above, demands
the normalization of names of persons, corporate bodies and
works, in order to organize records for editions of works
into work units. Normalization is costly, in that it
requires many hours of effort by highly trained staff.
Secondly, and of equal if not more importance, in order
for the technique of displaying the work to the user at the
main entry to succeed, the user has to be educated about the
power of the main entry and trained to look there, even
though he or she may have already found some information at
other points in the catalog. For example, if the user
seeking Guyton’s Basic human physiology does a title search
in the catalog, he or she will find the first and second
editions only; only the educated user who notices that the
main entry is Guyton, and then searches under author, will
find the third edition, which now has the title Human
physiology and mechanisms of disease.
It is possible that mechanical linking techniques that
bypass the alphabetical matching of identical headings might
enable us to do a better job of serving the user looking for
a work represented by more than one record.1 The
HYPERCATalog Project described by Hjerppe may be moving in
this direction.2 One can envision a catalog that could tell
31
a user looking at a particular record that a later edition,
or an English translation, or the same serial work under
another title is available, even though the user’s search did
not retrieve the later edition or the translation or all the
issues of the serial work.3 One way to conceptualize
collocation in the catalog of the future might be using the
concept of co-occurrence rules for searching. Currently
various keyword access systems assume that when a user’s
search includes more than one term, these terms should cooccur
within a single record, or within a single heading.
However, neither the MARC record (which represents a single
edition of a work) nor the single heading (which usually
represents either the author or the title, but rarely both)
corresponds to the particular work which is probably sought
by most known-item searchers. In other words, the sets
within which co-occurrence occurs in online systems probably
do not correspond to the sets sought by users. One online
solution might be to have the searching programs for known
item searchers look for the co-occurrence of more than one
keyword within the set of records comprising all editions of
a work, and all authority records for its author or authors.
Perhaps the job of the cataloger of the future will be to
maintain the mechanical links that create such sets in a
local online public access catalog, rather than to create the
individual records in such a way that they will come together
32
alphabetically, as is done now. One could envision the
process of cataloging as involving the cataloger pointing to
a particular author and work, so that a newly created record
could be linked correctly to existing author and work nodes.
Perhaps a program could even be devised to help the
cataloger determine the commonest form of name of a prolific
author, or even alert the cataloger when the commonest form
of name has changed. (Of course, for display purposes, a
single citation form will be required whenever the work needs
to be displayed with other works so that the user can choose
among them, as in a subject search.)
33
FOOTNOTES
1.. Michael Gorman, “Authority Control in the Prospective
Catalog,” in Authority Control:
the Key to Tomorrow’s Catalog: Proceedings of the 1979 Library and
Information
Technology Association Institutes (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1982),
166-180.
Michael Gorman, “Authority Files in a Developed Machine System,”
in What’s in a Name?
(Toronto: University of Toronto Library Automation System, 1978),
179-202.
Michael Gorman, “Cataloging and the New Technologies,” in The
Nature and Future of the Catalog, eds. Maurice J. Freedman and S.
Michael Malinconico (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1979), 127-152.
Michael Gorman, “Serial Control in a Developed Machine System,”
The Serials Librarian 5 (1980): 13-26.
Sally McCallum, “MARC Record-Linking Technique,” Information
Technology and Libraries 1 (1982): 281-291.
2.. R. Hjerppe, “Project HYPERCATalog: Visions and Preliminary Conceptions of an Extended
and Enhanced Catalog,” in International Research Forum in Information Science (6th: 1985:
Frascati, Italy), Intelligent Information Systems for the Information Society (Amsterdam: North-
Holland, 1986)
3.. Melissa M. Bernhardt, “Dealing with Serial Title Changes: Some Theoretical Considerations,”
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 9 (1988): 25-39.
Marjorie Flaspeter and Linda Lomker, “Earliest online …,” Serials Review 11 (1985): 63-70.
Robert B. Harriman, Jr., “Coordination of Cataloging Practices in the United States Newspaper
Program,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 6 (1986): 15-29.
manyuirah
formalmedia
