[PADG:1091] Separate bibliographic entity

[Cathleen Mook <cathy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good morning,

I am looking for some specific technical advice from my colleagues in the
library preservation microfilming field.  Hopefully someone out there has
solved this problem already and can help me out!!  Please respond to me off
list as this is a very quirky little problem which will bore everyone else
on the list to tears.

The University of Florida is just begun cataloging, filming and scanning
8,600 children's books from 1850-1869. The first 100 have completed the
cataloging step and arrived in Preservation for target preparation.  A
controversial issue has arisen with what we here at UF call "Bound With's",
books that have two distinct titles (two different titles pages and the page
numbering begins again from 1 with the second title) bound together into one
physical volume.  Sometimes, the titles were purchased separately unbound
and the owner had the titles bound together while in a slightly different
twist, the publisher intentionally issued the two title  volume as one
piece. According to the catalogers here at UF, AACR2 rules state that in the
second twist (publisher intentionally issued two titles in one volume) that
only one bibliographic record should be created.  The title of the first
piece is contained in the 245 field, while the title of the second piece is
placed in a 5XX note.  Added entries for the second title and second author
are contained in 7XX fields so the second title can be identified via our
OPAC.  [I do not know the specific cataloging rules in AACR2 that they are
quoting to regulate this issue.  Sorry.)

Now comes the sticky part.  In the RLG Handbook, p. 24, Rule 2.6  states "
Bibliographic volumes that have been bound together should be treated
nevertheless as separate bibliographic volumes".   Both Erich Kesse, the
Director of the Digital Library Center and former Head of Preservation here
at UF, and myself, interpret this statement to mean that a second distinct
bibliographic record must be created and targeted for the second title.
(Scanned images will also 'hang from' the separate bibliographic record)
Neither of us can see how to film/scan the two distinct titles using only
one bibliographic record.  The position the first title takes on the reel
(for example FUG BN007564.1) is key to accessing the first title, while the
second title would have to reside at FUG BN007564.2 where we might have to
refilm the same bib record a second time with the 5XX and 7XX fields bolded
for visibility. (If we did not film the bib record a second time, the
researcher would have to scroll slowly through the first volume, looking for
the second title page)  Erich informs me that the importance of this
distinction is even greater in the digital arena when trying to assign
individual file name metadata to the images from the second title.

Neither Erich and myself are really willing to compromise. Unfortunately,
neither are the catalogers. AACR2 has run right up again RLG. [In the grant
narrative, we agreed to follow both sets of rules.]  Has anyone out there
ever run into this problem before?  If so, can you please tell me how you
solved it?  Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. 

Thanks,

Cathy

Cathleen L. Mook
Head, Preservation Department
Smathers Library
University of Florida
Box 117007
Gainesville, Fl 32611
cathy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
352-392-6962 (voice)
352-392-6597 (fax)