Task Group on LC- Issued Descriptive Cataloging Documentation

Interim report

Consists of the following:

1. a five-page statement Philosophy, Purpose, Rationale for Creating RIs;
2. an action plan for the remaining work of the Task Group;
3. the results of a census of the RIs.

TASK GROUP CHARGE

1. Identify RIs that exist because of inadequacies in the cataloging code. Notify Barbara Tillett's CCC task group on code revision of suggested rule revisions.
2. Prior to the 1994 ALA Annual Conference, develop a statement outlining the philosophy, purpose, and rationale for creating RIs. Create a comprehensive list of conditions requiring an RI; e.g., local options, accommodation of special interest groups, system requirements, etc.
3. Examine each RI and indicate the conditions from the above list that apply to it, and develop an action plan to implement an efficient revision of the RIs. Complete the revision process in the shortest practicable time period."

TASK GROUP MEMBERS

LC: Bob Ewald (CPSO), Kay Guiles (CPSO; Chair), Jean Hirons (Serial Record Division), Susan Morris (Social Sciences Cataloging Division), Jerry Wager (Regional and Cooperative Cataloging Division)

Non-LC: Robert Bremer (OCLC, Inc.), Jackie Dooley (The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities), Lee Leighton (University of California, Berkeley), Amy McColl (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special Collection Libraries), Paul Weiss (National Library of Medicine)

INTRODUCTION

1. Environment of bibliographic control. While there are always caveats in stating the objectives of bibliographic control, they can be summarized in general as follows:

   The bibliographic record serves as a surrogate for a particular item and the aggregate of bibliographic records constitutes a catalog. In general, each bibliographic record contains a description of an item as a means of identifying it and distinguishing it from other items. It indicates related items and works, e.g., through various linking devices as well as collocation in displays of records. The record contains the means of providing access through various avenues, including author and other entities or concepts associated with a work, such as title, series, and subject. In general, subject access is through subject headings and classification. Headings are under authority control, which insures that particular occurrences of headings for authors, subjects, series, etc., are distinct for entities/concepts that are separate but are consistent for multiple occurrences of the same entity/concept.

   Descriptive cataloging, that aspect of cataloging which deals with collocating works, describing items, and providing non-subject access, is governed by the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., 1988 Revision (AACR2). The rules embody a complement of conventions, for example the Paris Principles and the International Standard Bibliographic Description, used for the bibliographic control of a wide variety of materials issued in various media and according to various patterns. While the rules themselves are extensive, some 600 pages no less, they still are not sufficient for the needs of an effective bibliographic control system as those needs have come to be defined over many years. Therefore, they are supplemented by rule interpretations issued at a national level, particularly by some of the national agencies that are themselves authors of the rules. Note also that another factor impacting present-day cataloging is the complement of conventions and mechanisms needed to support bibliographic control in a machine environment, e.g., USMARC, the needs and requirements of particular systems.

   Rule interpretations are stimulated by a combination of factors, some relating to the nature of the rules themselves (e.g., the characteristics of their design, their completeness, their intelligibility) and others relating to extra-rule considerations. Given the breadth of coverage of materials, the changeability of publishing/issuing practices, and the broad range of users to be served, it is likely that any set of widely-applied rules will require rule interpretations. Rule interpretations can serve as a common frame of reference in approaching cataloging problems for the U.S. library community, a means of exchanging information, and a method for supporting an overall consistency, thus making it easier to share records.

2. Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs). Almost from its beginning, the Library of Congress has issued internal guidelines to its staff of one kind or another. In 1970 it began publicly issuing rule interpretations, at first under the title Cataloging Decisions, and since 1977 under the title Rule Interpretations (RIs). While the RIs are prepared for use by LC staff, their venue has been indirectly extended by their de facto use by bibliographic utilities and other agencies and libraries throughout the country. Part of the issue of insuring effective use of the RIs is the need to clarify which aspects of them are for internal LC needs. That having been done, the RIs can then be used by other agencies with the caveat that LC- specific issues can be excluded from consideration by other than LC staff. Because the RIs impact a broader constituency than just LC, LC has developed mechanisms for consultation, including using established networks to elicit comment on newly proposed RIs or changes to existing RIs.

CATEGORIES OF RULE INTERPRETATIONS

The purpose of the LCRIs is to disseminate to Library of Congress staff and other interested parties polices of LC related to AACR2. The LCRIs fall into five categories, several of which mention consistency. Consistency is desirable when it facilitates retrieval or increases predictability of data elements so that staff and users know what to expect.

1. Option decisions. There are several options and alternative rules in AACR2. Rule 0.7 instructs cataloging agencies to make decisions about these options and to keep a record of these decisions. An RI is provided for each option in AACR2. The basic approach is to leave option decisions to cataloger judgment unless there is value in treating a bibliographic condition consistently. Examples: RI 9.5C2: Option decision: [Sides, density, and sectoring]; RI 25.5D: [GMDs in uniform titles].
2. Rule change implementation announcements. The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC) continuously revises AACR2 but only publishes updates to the code on an infrequent basis. If the JSC chooses to sanction implementation of a rule change before it is issued formally as a rule change, the rule change can appear in an RI. An RI is provided when the JSC sanctions implementation of a rule change before it is issued formally and LC and the national libraries of Australia, Britain, and Canada agree to implement the change early.
3. Rule replacement decisions. In exceptional circumstances, LC decides not to follow the rules as written. Such decisions are based on an assessment of the impact of the rule were it to be followed and a judgment, after consultation with other interested agencies, with respect to whether the impact is a desirable one or not. An RI is provided for each rule that LC does not follow. In such instances LC typically applies the rule in most cases, and the RI specifies the circumstances under which the rule is not followed. For example, RI 1.4D4: Shortening publisher when already named in the description permits the cataloger to use judgment in the rule's application rather than making it mandatory. RI 23.2: English or vernacular forms provides for more extensive use of the vernacular form of place names, in consonance with the policy of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, than the rule calls for. RI Appendix B.9: Roman alphabet abbreviations: Department sanctions the use of the abbreviation "Dept." in headings to preclude the extensive changes that libraries otherwise would have had to make at the time AACR2 was adopted. Much more rarely, the RI replaces the entire rule, e.g., RI Chapter 11: Microforms.
4. Rule explications. AACR2 does not explicitly cover all situations that exist in the bibliographic universe. Neither is it always adequate to the needs of current bibliographic control without supplementary clarification. Thus an RI is provided when consistency is desirable or when the RI can help shorten the decision-making process (or both). RIs address rule explications in the following situations:
   1. AACR2 is silent. AACR2 does not include a provision to cover the situation, e.g.,

      RI 1.0: General rules: Edition or copy

      RI 23.4B: Form of larger place

      25.5C: Language: Multilingual works

   2. AACR2 needs explanation. The AACR2 provision is not self- evident as to its intent, e.g:

      RI 1.6E1: Statements of responsibility relating to series

      RI 2.0B1: Chief source of information

      RI 24.20E: Other officials

   3. AACR2 is incomplete. The AACR2 provision does not go far enough in dealing with the situation, e.g.:

      RI 1.0H: Items with several chief sources of information

      RI 1.10: Items made up of several types of material

      RI 12.0A: Scope: Monograph vs. serial treatment of publications

      RI 24.1: General rule: Punctuation

   4. AACR2 needs amplification. AACR2 provides a basic general principle that requires additional development work to implement the principle in a manner that supports standard bibliographic control, particularly in an environment in which records are increasingly shared, e.g.:

      RI 1.0E: Matter than cannot be reproduced by the typographical facilities available

      RI 1.4D5: Recording multiple entities

      RI 12.1B4: Common title/section title

      RI 24.19: Direct or indirect subheading

      RI 25.5B: Conflict resolution: Serials/Including series

   5. AACR2 needs correction. Something in the text itself needs correction, e.g.:

      RI 24.26: Delegations to international or intergovernmental bodies

   6. LC procedures. Library of Congress procedures developed for its cataloging operation, e.g.:

      RI 2.7B17: Summary

      RI 21.30J: Titles: Data comprising title added entries and method of tracing them

      RI 26.1: General rule: Scope

   7. Inter-code policies. AACR2 is written as if all bibliographic and authority records in the catalog are constructed according to AACR2. In our practical world, AACR2 records mingle with records created according to AACR 1, the ALA rules, and other conventions. An RI is provided when consistency is desirable when dealing with records of different heritages or when the RI can help shorten the decision-making process or when significant time or money can be saved.

      Examples: RI 26: References: Reference evaluation (bringing pre-AACR2 forms of references into conforming with AACR2)

      RI 25.1: Use of uniform titles: Updating uniform titles entered under name headings.

CHARACTERISTICS OF RULE INTERPRETATIONS

1. Environment. After the adoption of AACR2 in 1981, many of the RIs were stimulated by conditions encountered in day-to-day cataloging activities. Although the application of automated techniques to bibliographic control had been introduced many years prior to the adoption of AACR2, there were still many libraries that did not yet make extensive use of automation either directly or indirectly. Thus in creating RIs, it was necessary to take into account both manual and machine modes of bibliographic control. This introduced a kind of ambiguity of purpose in the RIs in that some of the conventions in support of a manual mode were no longer needed in a machine mode and vice versa. With the increasing and extensive technological developments of the last several years, it now appears that enough time has elapsed to permit the focus of RIs to be bibliographic control in a machine environment.
2. Language. Because to utilize the RIs to their fullest advantage all users must understand them in the same way and because many subtleties are lost in textual translation, the RIs are written in English.
3. Content. RIs will embody the following characteristics when practicable:
   1. the terminology used is that of, or is consistent with, AACR2;
   2. terminology specific to 3 x 5 images of bibliographic data is not used;
   3. examples are used liberally; whenever meaningful, an attempt is made to include an English-language example, especially when an understanding of the RI is dependent upon a clear understanding of the sense of the example;
   4. examples that are complete USMARC fields are shown with USMARC content designation;
   5. each RI is as self-contained as possible.
4. Presentation. Many of the RIs are seen as being too "dense," i.e., essentially a lot of text without any structural conventions that might be used to elicit or highlight key factors. It is not clear that this can be easily corrected, since in some cases the RI emulates the layout of the rule in an attempt to provide structural assistance in that manner. Nevertheless, exploring the design of a model RI is a worthwhile enterprise. Some of the possible issues to explore are:
   1. design a standard means of orienting the RI; such an orientation might include the scope of the rule, the scope of the RI, the purpose of the RI, and the context of the RI;
   2. develop a standard design, with appropriate use of typography and layout; provide, as needed, a bridge from one page to the next;
   3. label made-up examples as such;
   4. put examples in context; use a standard monospaced font;
   5. use a standard means of indicating matter applicable within LC only.
5. Limitations. The RIs supplement the rules; they are not seen as a stand-alone tool. They are not designed for training or performance evaluation purposes. Their use assumes a basic knowledge of cataloging and some experience with the conventions of bibliographic control. Other documentation is much more suitable for training and other purposes. Some examples are: CONSER Cataloging Manual; LC's Cataloging Concepts: Descriptive Cataloging.

In the next stage of our work, the Task Group will do an RI assessment and an RI model as follows:

1. RI assessment:
   1. identify the RI provisions that the Task Group recommends be included in the cataloging code itself because the provisions are universally applicable;
   2. identify the RI provisions that should or should not be retained based on their importance in supporting standard bibliographic control, particularly in an environment in which records are increasingly shared;
   3. of the RIs to be retained, identify those needing improvement or change; recommend the order in which the changes should be done.
2. RI model: develop a model to be followed in creating RIs; test the model with several different types of RIs recommended to be retained.

Results of RI Census: Explanatory Statement

BACKGROUND

The LCRI census is an attempt to categorize and quantify certain aspects of the RIs in support of the work of the Task Group. The census itself consists of a chapter-by-chapter listing (67 pages) of "RI direction statements" (see next section), divided into three parts: the name of the RI direction statement, the category to which it belongs, and a brief description of its intent. Whenever a direction statement was developed at the request of a special constituency, that source is included in the description. In addition, we thought it would also be useful to include in the tables the number of rules themselves, limiting the count of them to what we call "AA2 rule statements," meaning directions/statements that contain actual text exclusive of headers without text or those that contain only examples but no text.

RULE INTERPRETATIONS

With respect to the RIs themselves, the count is not only of physical documents, but also of the "direction statements" within each physical document. Most RIs are divided into sections or paragraphs, each with its own header. For those sections/paragraphs lacking a header, we supplied one in brackets in the actual census itself. This facilitates the RI count and normalizes the basis for a comparison of the count of RI direction statements with that of the rule statements. Thus the RI count is a relatively accurate one of the number of "direction statements" in the RIs that can be characterized as being on a common theme or topic as indicated by the header, either the one already in the RI or the one supplied as part of taking the census.

The categories shown in the attached Results of RI Census are those described in the Philosophy statement and can be summarized as follows:

1. Option decisions. There are several options and alternative rules in AACR2. Rule 0.7 instructs cataloging agencies to make decisions about these options and to keep a record of these decisions.
2. Rule change implementation announcements. The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC) continuously revises AACR2 but only publishes updates to the code on an infrequent basis. If the JSC chooses to sanction implementation of a rule change before it is issued formally as a rule change, the rule change can appear in an RI.
3. Rule replacement decisions. In exceptional circumstances, LC decides not to follow the rules as written. Such decisions are based on an assessment of the impact of the rule were it to be followed and a judgment, after consultation with other interested agencies, with respect to whether the impact is a desirable one or not. An RI is provided for each rule that LC does not follow.
4. Rule explications. AACR2 does not explicitly cover all situations that exist in the bibliographic universe. Neither is it always adequate to the needs of current bibliographic control without supplementary clarification. Thus an RI is provided when consistency is desirable or when the RI can help shorten the decision-making process (or both). RIs address rule explications in the following situations:
   1. AACR2 is silent. AACR2 does not include a provision to cover the situation.
   2. AACR2 needs explanation. The AACR2 provision is not self-evident as to its intent.
   3. AACR2 is incomplete. The AACR2 provision does not go far enough in dealing with the situation.
   4. AACR2 needs amplification. AACR2 provides a basic general principle that requires additional development work to implement the principle in a manner that supports standard bibliographic control, particularly in an environment in which records are increasingly shared.
   5. AACR2 needs correction. Something in the text itself needs correction.
   6. LC procedures. Library of Congress procedures developed for its cataloging operation.
5. Inter-code policies. AACR2 is written as if all bibliographic and authority records in the catalog are constructed according to AACR2. In our practical world, AACR2 records mingle with records created according to AACR 1, the ALA rules, and other conventions. An RI is provided when consistency is desirable when dealing with records of different heritages or when the RI can help shorten the decision-making process or when significant time or money can be saved.

In addition, the Results includes the number of references to other RIs and the number of option decision references to other option decisions.

CENSUS TAKERS

All of the work on the census was done by the Washington members of the Task Group. There is consensus among them on the categories but not unanimous agreement. We think the categories were applied relatively consistently, with the caveat that perceptions differ as applied to the categorization of particular direction statements. The time available did not allow for the kind of refinement that otherwise might be desirable. Even so, we think the census as done provides an important characterization of the rules and the RIs that is valuable in an of itself but that will also be useful to the Task Group in pursuing the remainder of its work as stated in its action plan.

RESULTS

The census was not completed in time for a close analysis. Aside from Appendix A on Capitalization, the most rule statements and RI direction statements, as one might expect, are for the general chapter, followed by those for the chapters on choice of entry and corporate and personal names respectively. Most of the subcategories of RIs under Rule Explications are obvious candidates for review by the Task Group in judging what to recommend to include in the rules, to delete from the RIs, or to recast or revise, in accord with the development of a model for RIs if that proves to be successful.

THE TABULATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE RI CENSUS [WERE] AVAILABLE ONLY BY ANONYMOUS FTP FROM FTP.LOC.GOV IN DIRECTORY /PUB/COLLECTIONS.SERVICES. THERE ARE 3 FILES (2 IN QUATROPRO AND 1 IN WP51): 1) RI-CEN-1.Q1 2) RI-CEN-2.Q1 3) RI-CEN-R.WP51

*** Last Update 8/5/94 (ADP) ***