Re: [ARSCLIST] speaking of cataloging terminology...

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Melanie Brown wrote:

> Hello all -
>
> I am looking for some reliable online sources for A/V cataloging....  Namely CDs and DVDs, but some other older mixed media.  There are some intricacies in the 007 field, when cataloging optical discs - whether the disc is data-only, a video-recording, sound recording, etc.
>
> Any good suggestions?

Don't know if this is a good suggestion or not but...


I would assume you have checked
http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/0xx/007sound.shtm
for audio
and
http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/0xx/007video.shtm
for video

Of course I can't let this opportunity go by to write that these
catagories are limited and, at times, do not afford designations for
anything other than the obvious. Further, with all respect to catalogers,
some of these designations require more technical knowledge that one
should expect from a cataloger. Further, there are many technologies not
discussed. Designators of u for unknown and z for other are usually safe!

Making matters worse, sometimes you just won't know if a tape is dolby B,
C or S...and speaking of dolby S, there isn't any designator for
that...nor is there anything to adequately address SACD and DVD audio,
SACD with multichannel playback versus two channel playback versus, etc.

As per my suggestion, we assign accession numbers by format. This is,
however a general consideration. A wide groove 33, like those early Victor
LPs from the 30s have been known to be cataloged and shelved under the
same range for microgroove 12 inch discs.

If one shelves by format, some curious things can occur, a VHS tape which
was SVHS could be shelved next to a regular VHS tape and a VHS audio tape
(analog) next to a VHS PCM next to a VHS PAL or SECAM, etc.

And then there is one of my favorites, subfield e for sound recordings.
Nothing for binural and no differentiation between true stereo and
electronic stereo and...

And then with video, it is subfield i. The use of s in subfield i states
"Stereophonic. Use of two channels." Well, what do you do with the use of
two channels where one channel is devoted to one language and the other
channel, another language. Of course q is another wonder..."Multichannel,
surround or quadraphonic." All of those are as distinctive as the
differentiation between mono and stereo, yet they are all lumped together.

In the words of Anna Russell (in her discussion of the story of Wagner's
Ring, pointing out how absurd the story is) "I'm not making this up!"

Of course there are many other frontiers yet to be addressed...DVD -R
versus DVD +R etc.

In short, the 007 seems to me to be a waste of time. For me, if I were in
charge, assuming we can never get past the MARC format,  an informed 500
field is a better solution. (please no hate letters from catalogers...it's
just my opinion)...and accession by format (type of machine needed for
playback).

Karl