by Monika Münnich, University Library of
Heidelberg, Germany
(final version, July 1998. Note: this represents a pre-press version of a paper presented at an ALA pre-conference, held in Washington, D.C., in June 1998. It is intended for internal use and is not to be further distributed).
German academic libraries acquire more than 60% of their books
abroad; 90% of this material is provided by Anglo-American publishers. The bibliographic
records of the Library of Congress and the British National Bibliography are offered in
most of the German library networks. However reuse of these records without considerable
manual and intellectual intervention is appallingly low, especially in the context of
networks with linked files. Former retrocon projects of OCLC and the German Library
Insitute showed the same results.[1] And vice versa the Library of
Congress came to the similar conclusions when trying to import German records to their
system as Sarah Thomas reported 2 years ago at the German Bibliothekartag [2].
So the REUSE projects emerged in a time when changes toward
harmonization with AACR not only were accepted but demanded. This was not only due to
resources rapidly getting scarcer but I think just as well due to the fact that the
Internet is a mighty international factor which we librarians have to keep up with by
using common standards.
At the same time in Germany the call for online alignment of
cataloging rules was at least as strong as the claim for internationality. So we
catalogers tried to serve both aims - which seems to turn out easier than expected or at
first feared.
Before I come to the contents of
REUSE and its aftermath, let me delineate the German landscape of rule making
committees and the main rule application forum: the regional library networks (LN) and the
Authority Files. In Germany all University Libraries (in most cases including their campus
institutions) and State Libraries are members of regional library networks. In addition
many special collection libraries participate. The serials are cataloged in the Serials
Data Base in Berlin and the regional records and holdings are imported (weekly) into the
regional LN.
· German Regional Networks (Verbuende)
· Bayerischer Bibliotheksverbund - Bavarian Library
Network (Munich)
http://www-opac.bib-bvb.de/
· Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg -
Berlin-Brandenburg LN (Berlin)
http://www.dbi-berlin.de/de/ibas/bvbb/bvbb_00.htm
· Hessischer Bibliotheksverbund - Hessian LN (Frankfurt)
http://www.hebis.de/hebis/
· Gemeinsamer Bibliotheksverbund - Common LN (of Central
and Northern Germany) (Goettingen)
http://www.brzn.de/
· Hochschulbibliothekszentrum - University Library Center
of Northrhine-Westphalia (Cologne)
http://www.hbz-nrw.de
· Südwestdeutscher Bibliotheksverbund - Southwest German
LN (including Saxony) (Constance)
http://www.swbv.uni-konstanz.de/index.htm/
· National networks:
· Zeitschriftendatenbank - Serials Data Base (Berlin)
http://www.dbilink.de
· Verbundkatalog: Union Catalog (Berlin, combining all
regional LN in one file - no active LN)
http://www.dbi-berlin.de
· National and State Libraries
· Die Deutsche Bibliothek - the German Library
(Frankfurt/Leipzig)
http://www.ddb.de/
· Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - Bavarian State Library
(Munich)
http://www.bsb.badw-muenchen.de/
· Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz - Berlin
State Library
http://www.sbb.spk-berlin.de/
· National Authority Files
· National Authority File for Corporate Bodies at the
Berlin State Library (Berlin)
· NAF for Names of Persons (Frankfurt)
· NAF for Subject Headings (Frankfurt)
A little over a year ago the organization of cataloging rules
committees was changed. We now have
· a working level - the Working Group for
Descriptive Cataloging
consisting of 10 members representing the regional library networks, the Serials Data
Base, the German Library and the Library
Supply Center [mainly for Public Libraries] and the Austrian LN, and
· a decision level - the Cataloging Rules
Conference (i. e. for descriptive and subject cataloging).
German Rules Landscape
Institutions
Members
Members
Working Level
Decision Level
(WG Descriptive Cata) (Cat.
Rules Conf.)[3]
Bavaria (Munich) LN State
Library |
Gaby Messmer Gaby Messmer |
Dr. Friedrich Geißelmann Dr. Klaus Haller |
Berlin LN
Berlin/Brandenburg) State
Library German
Libraries Inst. |
Günter Franzmeier Günter Franzmeier Hella Braune |
Monika Kuberek Günter Hädrich Dieter Höchsmann |
Central+North. G. LN (Göttingen) |
Dr. Feruzan Akdogan |
Reiner Diedrichs |
Hesse (Frankfurt) Hessian
LN German
Library |
Sieglinde Korell Christa Zimpel |
Dr. Sabine Wefers Reinhard Rinn |
Northrhine-Westf. LN (Cologne) |
Luise Hoffmann |
Heinz-Werner Hoffmann (Chair) |
South-West G. LN (Constance) |
Monika Münnich (Chair) |
Dr. Marion Mallmann-Biehler |
For the Public Libraries: |
|
|
Supply Center for Libr. (Reutlingen) |
Petra Friedmann |
Albrecht Fischer |
German Library Associaton / Section 1-3[4] |
|
Ute Scharmann Peter Petsch Angelika Hesse |
Austrian LN (Vienna) |
Johann Winkler |
Dr. Wolfgang Hamedinger (Guest) |
Conference of German Swiss Univ. Libr. (Bern) |
|
Dr. Hans Lehmann (Guest) |
To complete the German landscape: Four library networks (Bavaria,
North-Rhine-Westphalia, the Southwest with Saxony and the Serials Data Base) will migrate
to Horizon at the beginning of 1999. This has been and still is a major factor of rapid
progress in rule changes, at least for rule changes that can be carried out automatically.
REUSE and REUSE+ were projects in which
· biblographic data were systematically analyzed in
several work packages,
· and codes that underly these bibliographic data were
compared.
The close cooperation of rule experts in the US and Germany made
the analysis possible. In this context I would like to thank above all Barbara Tillett of
LC and Glenn Patton of OCLC.
The close cooperation (and partly personal union) with German
rule experts was the prerequisite for realization of rule changes and harmonization.
As time is short I would prefer to summarize the projects from
the point of view of rule alignment, and not delineate the methods. The reports of the
project can be found under the following URL:
http://www.oclc.org/oclc/cataloging/reuse-project/index.htm
From the standpoint of rules, minor and major differences were
defined as follows:
· Minor rule differences:
· ISBD: a few alignments will be necessary
· Main and added entries:
We do have major differences in this context. But
regarding the online-world we kept the topic as minor. The Toronto Conference, though,
showed the difference. Thus the solution of the German Rules Experts might be of interest.
· Major rule and format differences:
Headings for persons, corporate bodies and titles are
different, in some cases definitions differ and in many cases entities do not match, a few
examples:
· Main differences in headings for persons:
Modern names are similar though there are still some
decisive differences:
· prefixes within a surname are written without any
spaces,
· and above all: identical names are not differentiated
by qualifiers
Ancient names differ considerably, as we use the Latin
or the original form.
· Main differences in headings for corporate bodies:
just to mention a few:
· executive and information agencies are not entered as
subdivisions (they are omitted)
· conferences of organizing corporate bodies are not
entered as subdivisions (their publications are entered under the organizing body)
· geographic names are always entered under the original
and official name, etc.
Within the corporate bodies many entities will not be
matched.
A comparison of corporate bodies in AACR2r and RAK has
been made by colleagues in Cologne based on a check of all RAK examples by LC colleagues
in NAF. See the URL:
URL: http://www.ocl.org/oclc/cataloging/reuse-project/comparison.htm
· Main differences in headings for titles:
In many cases in
RAK the title is not entered as it occurs in the item, especially as hyphens, slashes, and
other marks are concerned - spaces are added or omitted differently.
A major difference is the so-called
Ansetzungssachtitel - a kind of a filing title for e.g. volume and author
statements at the beginning or the end of a title. In case of author statements
AACR-catalogers sometimes enter under a uniform title.
· Multivolume records are treated considerably different:
we use hierachies and links, Ill refer to this in
the next chapter.
· Romanization in non Latin languages is considerably
different.
As a result of their work the REUSE working group proposed a
number of actions to be taken immediately in Germany:
· Active participation of German libraries and library
networks in international authority files. In this context differentiation of identical
personal names should be mandatory. The entities of corporate bodies should be equalized
as well.
· Changes in the bibliographic record section of RAK:
· The title proper should be the main title. The title
should be entered as it appears in the item.
· All form titles (as festschrift, treaties,
constitutions and Sammlung - collected works etc.) should be encoded. An
international standardization should be the aim.
· Multivolume works should be analyzed in a further
project (REUSE+). Within this context the hierarchy of separate records for subseries
(Abteilungen) should be abandoned.
In Reuse+ the
different types of representations of hierarchical bibliographic structures in the formats
USMARC and MAB2 (including the formats of the Goettingen and Constance Library Networks)
were to be analyzed.
As the final project report is written in German, with only an
English summary currently available, I will give some details and examples. In German library networks we create records for
the whole and the parts, i.e. for every volume of a multivolume work regardless whether
the title is distinctive or not. Thus it is done once in the central database as a master
record for all participants. Local systems reuse these records.
Thus we dutifully follow AACR in applying hierachies in
multivolume works:
AACR 13.6A: Divide the descriptive information into two
or more levels. Give at the first level only information relating to the item as a whole.
Give at the second level information relating to a group of parts or to the individual
part being described. If information at the second level relates to a group of parts, give
information to the individual part at a third level.
To import German data into USMARC should not be difficult as we
differ between parts without distinctive titles (so called Bandaufführung) and with
distinctive titles (Stücktitel). The last have the same record structure as monographic
series, the first could be imported to 505 with or without further information. The
difficulty is to extract the information for multivolume works from American records,
especially when using the tags 300 and 505, as 505 is used for other information as well
(e.g. TOCs, contents works). The information indicating multivolume works now can only be
retrieved by the v. in 300.
I would like to demonstrate this:
Structure of multivolume works in Germany
1st level:
Collective title record: (item as a whole)
= this record is always made, regardless whether the volumes have
distinctive titles or not
![]() |
author / corporate body
(links to authority files)
title proper
statement of responsibility
publ. place : publisher
notes etc.
2nd or further level
![]()
![]()
subseries volume record[5]
(if existing)
title of subseries
..
linkages to volumes
the volumes:
a) volumes with weak,
b) volumes with
general or no titles
distinctive titles
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
(Bandaufführung)
(Stücktitel)
authors / corp. bodies
authors / corp. bodies
(if existing, linked to authority file)
(if existing, linked to authority file)
general / weak title (if any)
title proper
statement of responsibiblity
statement of responsibiblity
edition statement
edition statement
publication year
publication year
physical description
physical description
![]()
collective title ; volume
collective title ; volume
(upward link to collective title record by ID-number)
Structure of
multivolume works - Examples
· Records for a multivolume work with weak title
(type a))
OCLC record - one record Record in the SW LN - 4 records
1st level, collective title record
001 ocm28254594 idn 2993008
... BND 3
100 1 aYarwood, Doreen. 200eYarwood, Doreen
245 14aThe architecture in Europe /cDoreen 320*_The_ architecture in Europe
Yarwood 359 Doreen Yarwood
260 aLondon :bBatsford,1992- 410 London
300 av.<1-3 > ;c25 cm 412 Batsford
... 574 mb (indicates the multivolume work)
505 1 av.1 The ancient classical and Byzantine world,
3000... --v.2. The Middle Ages, 650-1550
-- v.3 Classical architecture, 1420-1800 2nd level - 1st volume
idn 2993032
...
440 442 (2993008) _The_ architecture in Europe ; 1
445 The ancient classical and Byzantine world, 3000... - 1992. - VII, 166 S. : zahlr. Ill., Kt.
...
574 od (indicates that it is a volume record type a), without a distinctive title)
records for the 2nd and 3rd volume are equivalent
· Records for a multivolume work with a
distinctive title (type b))
In this case a monographic series which is treated identically as finite multivolume records in most German LN
OCLC
- 1 record
Southwest German LN - 2 records
Record for the collective title:
001 ocm13063011 idn 642075
... ...
100 1 aBrazier, Paul. ...
245 10aArt history in education :ban annotated .. 320* Studies in education
.. /cPaul Brazier ; introduction ... ...
260 aLondon ...,c1985 410 London
300 acii, 72 p. ;c22cm 574 se (Indicator for an - infinite - series)
...
490
1 aStudies in education,x0458-2101 ;
Record for the part:
vnew ser. 15
... idn 1395340
830 0a aStudies in education (London, England) ...
;vnew ser. 15 200*Brazier, Paul
320 Art history in education
335 an annotated ...
359 Paul Brazier
410 London
412 Heinemann Educational Books
425 XII, 72 S.
440 442 (0642075) Studies in education ; N.S., 15
...
The context of the project includes statistical material from
OCLC concerning the occurence of variant fields for multivolume records: a statistical
evaluation regarding the usage of the combinations USMARC tag 300 (including the v. for
volume) with tag 505, or tag 490 with 8XX. In
both types tag 245 is used in different ways. In the first case tag 245 contains the
collective title and in the second case mostly the distinctive title is put in tag 245.
The group could not recognize a reliable pattern in which way the subfields of tag 245 for
the part of an multivolume work are used and what is the difference of using the
combination 300 with 505 by multivolume items, which do not have distinctive titles.
A term difference is to be stated in the usage of
series which is obviously applied for finite multivolume works as well as for
ongoing monographic series. We differentiate between multivolume (finite) works and
monographic (ongoing) series.
A further problem are the differences of specific coded terms
(monographic component part, monographic series, multipart item) which makes it difficult
to convert the bibliographic information of the coded fields of USMARC into the German
context.
Sally McCallum describes several models of linking-concepts[6]
for multilevel structured items in USMARC by using tag 773 and 774 in addition to the
known tags and combinations of these. New are the ideas to make a link from the particular
volume to the collective title by the record identification number and to integrate more
than one level.
In conclusion the German Reuse-Project-Group suggests:
Concerning the German formats (MAB2 and other German formats):
· to revise the deep hierachical structure in German data
models and to integrate all levels in the volume record,
· to standardize the different structures for multivolume
works and series in German systems,
· to align the English expression series in
RAK,
· to reduce the physical volume record statement on the
bibliographical area in cases like the German encyclopedia Brockhaus (vol
1-21).
Concerning the USMARC-Format:
· to use an indicator in tag 505 which indicates a
multivolume item, if possible,
· to examine the usage of the tag 245 in combination with
300 and 505 or in combination with 490 and 800,
· to examine Sally McCallums draft and the
possibility of introducing a linking structure in American network systems.
Concerning the international discussion platform:
· to standardize coded terms on an international scale,
· to standardize ongoing publications on the basis of the
Hirons/Graham paper.
The lucky
personal union and the close connection and cooperation of the German project participants
and expert members in the Working Group, the Conference and the regional networks
certainly had a positive influence on a quick realization of all measures that had to be
taken. And last but not least, in cases of doubt as far as AACR2r, LCRI or practices in
American networks are concerned, our American colleagues in LC and OCLC and others have
always been of utmost help in providing support.
Major steps towards rule alignment on the one side and towards
harmonization with online requirements on the other have been made in the meantime.
Shortly before Easter the Cataloging Rules Conference decided
upon the first six resolutions prepared by the Working Group Descriptive Cataloging:
They are:
The first resolution refers to titles:
· The RAK term Titel comprises the title
(Sachtitel) and the statement of responsibibity. The Conference accepted the reduction of
the term according to international usage.
· The title proper will be the primary title. The
Ansetzungssachtitel (filing title) will be an additional title and will be used in rare
cases. The title generally will be entered as it appears in the item (exceptions have to
be defined).
The encoding of certain terms is supposed to improve the OPAC
searching and at the same time to simplify the international exchange as codes provide a
multilingual bais:
· The German form titles Festschrift, Vertrag (treaty)
and Verfassung (constitution) will be encoded. The dates of treaties and constitutions
will be entered in an authorized form in a different tag, not as qualifiers.
· The encoding of Sammlung - Collection
(partly equivalent to the uniform title of Works though not differentiated according to
Collected Works, Selection etc.) is referred back to the Working Group. The Conference
sees no need to use that term in online catalogs.
· All conference proceedings will be encoded as
conferences regardless wether they are named or unnamed. The qualifiers will
be replaced: the conference place will be entered under a different tag and should be
linked with the Authority File of Corporate Bodies in Berlin to provide all the references
as well. The numbering and the year will be entered - in an authorized form - in a new tag.
Thus we allow the user to search a conference, in a certain year at a certain place not
knowing any title or named or unnamed corporate body.
The Working Group has to revise the rules for conference proceedings in this context. So
far named and unnamed conferences are treated differently: the first are entered
monographically, the second as serials. Conferences of organizing corporate bodies so far
are not entered subordinately. The publications are entered under the parent corporate
body. I am not sure if an agreement can be reached in the Working Group and the Rules
Conference. At least the encoding will improve the exchange.
· Exhibitions will be encoded in the same way. With the
revision of the conference rules we hopefully will introduce the LCRI regulation
concerning exhibitions, i.e. to enter exhibitions as corporate bodies if they are named
and ongoing. This will be a considerable reduction for German Catalogers.
· All language qualifiers (of uniform titles and
collected works) will be entered in separate tags according to ISO 639-2 - the Alpha 3
code.
In RAK the prefix and the surname are treated as one filing word
(without any spaces). Even names in titles were entered in the same manner. This has led
to many confusions for patrons and catalogers as well. The Working Group proposed a change
and it was accepted. Its a harmonization with AACR as well. We expect that
corrections in our Name Authority File can be made automatically.
As delineated above in the German exchange format hierarchies for
subseries (Abteilungen) within finite multivolume works are entered as separate records.
The Conference accepted the abolition of these hierarchies.
This means that subseries statements are entered on the area of the volume
statement.
The question of main and added entries has been a very
controversial topic - if we remember the aacrconf-list. In Germany most of the catalogers
think it doesnt make any sense in the online world. On the other hand,
scholars bibliographic citation of a work must be taken into consideration. Thus we
found a wonderful compromise - at least to our minds:
· The first author is marked.
· The author definition is expanded considerably (all
persons that do not have a distinctive function, as e.g. editor.). In cases of doubt the
person is an author. In present RAK the author term is defined very narrowly (e.g., if you
can assign parts of a work to different authors they are not authors anymore).
With this change we have come very close to the AACR definition, and as the first author
is marked, the exchange of bibliographic records will be considerably improved.
· An almost revolutionary decision and extension of the
present number of entries was made by the Conference: All authors that appear prominently
on the item may be entered, except for authors in anthologies, collections, conference
papers etc. (they could be entered as analytics). In former card catalogs the number of
entries and cards enlarged a catalog. In OPACs this deserves no consideration - however,
authority work has to be done. The information for the patrons was considered to be more
useful. The same is recommended for persons with functions. The basic standard for entries
is three. Though this measure exceeds AACR
it will not impede the exchange. Perhaps it could be an encouragement?
The last resolution I had to present and defend was the
conceptual basis of RAK2 (still a working title).
RAK2 persues the following aims:
· adaption to online conditions,
· high international compatibility,
· consideration of economic aspects.
Thus the basic rules will be adapted according to the changes
mentioned above.
No changes will be made as far as fundamental international terms
are concerned as work, edition etc. We do hope and wait for the Functional Requirements.
Within the section of general rules, statements concerning the
card catalogs have to be revised, online instructions have to be introduced. ISBD will be
kept as a presentation form, the regulations will not be primarily in online cataloging,
though the necessity of reconstruction of an ISBD record has to be ensured.
The codes for entering the title proper are going to be aligned
(i.e. as stated on the item).
Entries under names of persons and corporate bodies will not be
changed in general, the existing Authority Files do forbid that. On the other hand, if we
strive for an international authority file on the basis of what Barbara Tillett calls
access control,[7]
a general alignment of names is not needed. But the identity of entities is a prerequisite
for a common file.
In this context a notable tendency voting has to be stated: We
will introduce differentiation of equal names on a voluntary and feasable basis, a major
step for German catalogers, but the only means for international authority participation.
We have made adaptions in the case of prefixes as reported
before, an adaption which is usefull in Germany as well.
We will try hard to harmonize at least the entities as far as
corporate bodies are concerned. The headings for conference corporate bodies will
hopefully be harmonized, at least the encoding will improve data exchange.
The headings under formal titles have been improved on the basis
of encoding.
And last but not least entries under persons and corporate bodies
have been expanded:
· the first author is marked and the author term is
changed closely to that of AACR,
· the number of headings is increased: American standards
will be served, in some cases exceeded.
One problem has not been solved in the projects: the different
way of romanization. We should keep this in mind.
If we achieve all the alignments that have been identified many
problems still remain. But I think we better get started.
German rule makers have made a considerable step, at least to our
minds. The new code is intended to be almost completed by the end of 1999. Nevertheless
this is a very moderate step towards internationality as I mentioned before:
To conclude: our dream of internationality could be started right
away and
from the German perspective the steps could look like this:
· The Germans should realize all proposed code changes.
· American and German librarians should talk about
participation of the German Library and/or German Regional Networks in LCNAF on the basis
of access control as soon as possible.
· Germans would like to talk about a slight alignment in
the treatment of multivolume works - possibly not only a German plea but a European one as well.
· Data exchange under the new perspectives should be
tested.
· Cataloging on an international scale should be
promoted, e.g. :
· The functional requirements should be integrated in international cataloging. The Toronto Conference
has shown interesting approaches.
· Ongoing publications should be treated equally
worldwide. The Hirons/Graham report (of Toronto) is worth a worldwide discussion. Within
this context the key title problem should be solved.
· A basis for an international discussion forum should be
realized to reach the aim of international cataloging as soon as possible.
[1]Report on the project: Retrokonversion - Konversion von Zettelkatalogen in deutschen Hochschulbibliotheken. Methoden, Verfahren, Kosten. Berlin 1993, Deutsches Bibliotheksinstitut (dbi-Materialien 128)
[2] Sarah E. Thomas: Kooperation der Library of Congress mit deutschen Bibliotheken im Erschließungsbereich. In: 86. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Erlangen 1996 - Ressourcen nutzen für neue Aufgaben. S. 266 - 272
[3]Subject Working Groups are not part of this transparency
[4]3 Sections of the German Library Association (Deutscher Bibliotheksverband) representing different sizes of Public Libraries supplying towns from under 100,000 to over 400,000 inhabitants
[5]Only created for multivolume works without continuous numbering. This level will be given up.
[6]A paper presented to the REUSE Project, in which several linking concepts are delineated.
[7] Tillett, Barbara B.:
-- Access Control: a Model for Descriptive, Holding and Control Records, in: Convergence : proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Library and Information Technology Association, October 2-6, 1988, Boston, Ma., ed. By Michael Groman, Chicago : ALA, 1990, p. 48-56
-- 21st Century Authority Control: What Is It and How Do We Get There?, in: The Future Is Now: Reconciling Change and Continuity in Authority Control. Proceedings of the OCLC Symposium. OCLC, 1995, p. 17-21