Task Force on Rule 0.24

Task Force Activities, January 1999

1. Introductions (5 min.)

2. Part II of the Delsey report (5 min.)

   Question to be addressed: Is there anything in Part II of the Delsey report that falls into our purview? In other words, does Part II raise content/carrier issues or edition/manifestation issues that we should attempt to address?

3. Procedural questions concerning how to come up with recommendations for Rule 0.24 (15 min. total)
   1. Timing: Would there be an advantage to us if we were able to finalize our recommendations concerning Rule 0.24 prior to the Annual meeting, so that they could be discussed and possibly endorsed by CCDA at the Annual meeting. Our charge says we do not have to finish until Midwinter of 2000, but that might mean waiting an extra year for results from JSC? (5 min.)

   2. What tasks would we have to undertake between now and Annual meeting in order to complete our recommendations by then? (10 min.)
      1. Come to some conclusion regarding the advisability of reorganizing Chapters 1-13 based on ISBD area. How can we do this? Email discussion? Other suggestions?

      2. If we do not agree that reorganization should be recommended, recommend another solution to the problem of providing guidance to catalogers concerning items with multiple characteristics. How can we come up with an alternative recommendation? Email discussion? Draft by subgroup? (Any volunteers?) Other suggestions?

      3. Make recommendations concerning how the code could provide better guidance on the question of when to make a new record. How can we do this? Email discussion? Draft by subgroup? (Any volunteers?) Other suggestions?

      4. Other tasks?

4. Group discussion concerning reorganization based on ISBD area. (40 min.)

   Some topics suggested by John Attig:

   • Pull together comments on the 'class of materials' issue in the Delsey model, including pros and cons on the suggested reorganization.
   • Look again at carrier vs. content as concepts in the rules and see where the distinction appears in the rules and where it is causing problems--other than 0.24.
   • Look at the various functions served by 0.24 and related/adjacent rules and see what problems exist that may require changing the rules.

   Task Force stance on this question so far:

   1. The concept of class of materials as currently reflected in the code could work if it were cleaned up so that it was based on content only, not carrier. (Betsy)
   2. The code works as is and should not be changed. (Verna)
   3. The code should be reorganized by ISBD area. (John, Martha, Glenn, Laurel, Ann, and Michael)
   4. The code does not work well for items with multiple characteristics, but some other solution besides organization based on content or ISBD area should be devised. (Ed, Sherry and Crystal)
   5. Not yet heard from: Joan, Bruce

   Related documents:

   • Reorganization of AACR2 by ISBD area, Email from Martha Yee, Dec. 2, 1998 (Also, see Appendix, 1.)
   • Agenda, Email from Crystal Graham, Jan. 7, 1999 (Also, see Appendix, 2.)
   • Additional thoughts on 0.24, Email from Laurel Jizba, Jan. 9, 1999 (Also, see Appendix, 3.)
   • Possible approaches to modifying the cardinal principle in 0.24, Email from Martha Yee, Jan. _, 1999 (Also, see Appendix, 4.)
   • Functions of Rule 0.24, Email from Martha Yee, Jan. _, 1999 (Also, see Appendix, 5.)

5. Group discussion concerning the concepts of manifestation and edition/expression in AACR2R. (40 min.)

   Related documents:

   • Defining expression, Email from Martha Yee, July 14, 1998 (Also, see Appendix, 6.)
   • Glossary, Email from Martha Yee, December 2, 1998 (Also, see Appendix, 7.)
   • When to input a new record, OCLC document on the Web at: http://www.oclc.org/oclc/bib/chap4.htm
   • LCRI for rule 1.0, GENERAL RULES, May 21, 1990
   • Edition and publication as found in ISBD(ER), Email from Laurel Jizba, Jan. 9, 1999 (Also, see Appendix, 8.)

I am working on compiling all of your comments into a report on Part I of the Delsey report, and it occurred to me that it might be useful to do a quick exercise to see how often tables of precedence would still be necessary if AACR2 were reorganized by ISBD area. I categorized the chapters of AACR2 into 'content,' 'carrier,' 'type of publication' and 'other' categories (and you may not all agree on how I did this!). Then I looked at each ISBD area as a whole in each chapter to see where there were special rules that covered only the class of materials dealt with by that chapter. The following is what I came up with (very quick and dirty):

REORGANIZATION OF AACR2

Chapter 2, Books pamphlets and printed sheets
Chapter 3, Cartographic materials
Chapter 4, Manuscripts (including manuscript collections)
Chapter 5, Music
Chapter 6, Sound recordings
Chapter 7, Motion pictures and videorecordings
Chapter 8, Graphic materials
Chapter 9, Computer files
Chapter 10, Three-dimensional artefacts and realia
Chapter 11, Microforms
Chapter 12, Serials
Chapter 13, Analysis

Content chapters:
Chapter 3, Cartographic materials
Chapter 5, Music
Chapter 6, Sound recordings (for new works, e.g. ethnographic recordings, bird songs)
Chapter 7, Motion pictures and videorecordings (for new works and adaptations of existing works)
Chapter 8, Graphic materials
Chapter 9, Computer files (for programs and new works)
Chapter 10, Three-dimensional artefacts and realia

Carrier chapters:
Chapter 2, Books pamphlets and printed sheets
Chapter 6, Sound recordings (for musical performances and talking books)
Chapter 7, Motion pictures and videorecordings (for musical performances only)
Chapter 9, Computer files (for digitized copies and versions of non-computer files)
Chapter 11, Microforms

Type of publication chapters:
Chapter 12, Serials

Other:
Chapter 4, Manuscripts (including manuscript collections) (published vs. unpublished; method of management)
Chapter 13, Analysis (part-whole relationships)

WHERE THE RULES DIFFER FROM CHAPTER TO CHAPTER:

CHIEF SOURCE

Content (3,5,6,7,8,10)
Carrier (2,7,8,9,11)
Type of publication (12)
Other (Early printed monographs (2.13),4,13)

AREA 1

Content (3,5,6,7,8,9,10)
Carrier (7,9)
Type of publication (12)
Other (Early printed monographs (2.14),4)

AREA 2

Content (9)
Type of publication (12)
Other (Early printed monographs (2.15))

AREA 3

Content (3,6,9)*
Carrier (9)
Type of publication (12)

AREA 4

Content (5,6,8,10)
Carrier (6)
Type of publication (12)
Other (Early printed monographs (2.16), 4, early printed music (5.4B2))

AREA 5

Content (3,5,6,7,8,9,10)
Carrier (2,6,7,9,11)
Type of publication (12)
Other (Early printed monographs (2.17),4,13)

AREA 6

Type of publication (12)
Other (4)

AREA 7

Content (3,5,7,8,9,10)
Carrier (6,7,9,11)
Type of publication (12)
Other (Early printed monographs (2.18),4,13)

AREA 8

Other (4)

*Note that archival moving image materials (Chapter 7) also use Area 3 for country of production.

****

Note that tables of precedence would still be needed quite frequently, when the analysis is done at the area level like this. Perhaps if it were done at the rule level instead, though, the results would be different? When you have a digitized manuscript map, for example, would the rules for the title and statement of responsibility area (area 1) function cumulatively (could you just follow all of the rules), or would they come into conflict with each other at some points?

. . .


2. Agenda, Email from Crystal Graham, Jan. 7, 1999

It would be awfully presumptive of me to say, "if I were chair of the 0.24 task force, here's what I'd do . . . " given that I'm not a current CC:DA member (tho I've surely done my time in the past) and I'm merely a consultant to the task force. But I've whined enough and think a concrete suggestion might be more productive:

I believe there are three possible alternatives for incorporating electronic pubs into the rules.

1 - reorganize rules by ISBD area
2 - incorporate remote resources into chapter 9
3 - add a new chapter

It might be a good idea to form a new group or subgroup to debate the pro's and con's of such approaches, but I don't think that should be our primary focus.

Let's break down 0.24 to analyze what problems it currently causes:

1. 0.24 instructs us to refer to the chapter for the class of materials to which something belongs. This is a big problem for mixed materials, serials, and remote pubs, where the material belongs to more than one class, which will continue regardless of reorganization in cases where the directions vary (see list distributed earlier). One option would be first to place type of pub instructions higher on the precedence list than content/carrier chapters.

2. 0.24 instructs us to base the description on the item being cataloged, not the original. This is the familiar mulver/near-equivalents problem. Reorganizing the rules has no relevance to this question. The existence of electronic versions just magnifies an old problem by proliferating the number of possible versions (e.g., print vs. electronic) and introducing new ones (e.g., ASCII vs. Word vs. WP vs. HTML)

3. 0.24 instructs us to base the description on the piece in hand. Electronic versions cannot be held in hand. Actually this is not a new problem in that serials catalogers have tried to construct a record for the entire run of a serial, not just the one issue in hand. This language is not appropriate, but seems to me to have received a disproportionate amount of attention in the Delsey report and in our deliberations.

Once we've drafted a list of 0.24 problems, we should explore ways to address them. In some cases rearranging the rules will dramatically change our options, but in others (most, in my opinion) the arrangement of the rules will not affect the problems one iota.

I think the approach of developing a problem(s) statement, brainstorming alternatives, selecting best ideas, and integrating the solutions would get us back on track. Of course this will only work if we all participate with more vigor than most of us have done to date.

Crystal Graham
Head, Digital Information & Serials Cataloging
University of California, San Diego cgraham@ucsd.edu (619) 534-1283


3. Additional thoughts on 0.24, Email from Laurel Jizba, Jan. 9, 1999.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON 0.24

An analysis of the functions of 0.24 as it currently reads, based on our Task Force email discussions to date and on my own thoughts, yields the following five functions:

1. MULTIPLE CHARACTERISTICS. 0.24 functions to "Provides guidance in the cataloging of items with multiple characteristics that must be cataloged using more than one chapter in AACR2R." - Martha in a private email conversation (and many others in various 0.24 TF email discussions)

   PROBLEM: However, 0.24 provides multiple characteristic guidance rather POORLY because:

   1. TOO LITTLE GUIDANCE. In paragraph one it only gives one example, that of a change between one print carrier/class of material (paper) to that of another print carrier (microform). In paragraph two, how to treat a serial motion picture (a 2nd example) is addressed. These examples alone are inadequate because not all items/objects are alike and so can not always be treated by analogy, even in a cursory way. Different items/objects from differing carriers/classes carry differing characteristics, with differing degrees of import, to the description and to the user.
   2. POOR EXAMPLE.The example given in paragraph one is NOT widely in use by most libraries nor shared in most bibliographic networks.
   3. POOR INSTRUCTION. The example in paragraph one seems to assume that--by analogy--treatment for other carriers would neatly follow suit-- when, in fact, the treatments and truth are both more complex given that not all carriers/media are alike in terms of primary characteristics (see Delsey's model report for Part I, Table 1: Defined scope for classes of materials).
   4. MORE COMPREHENSIVE INSTRUCTION NEEDED. It would be better if, in the case of materials falling into more than one class, 0.24 comprehensively addressed each class of materials involved in a "bi-media" or multimedia situation (electronic and otherwise). This could be done either within the 0.24 text or with a sentence or two or three referring catalogers to elsewhere in the text (say to a new appendix or a new chapter).

2. EXCLUSIONS. 0.24 functions to exclude from the universe of items to be cataloged any item that does not have a physical description.

   PROBLEM: When taken literally, this excludes creation of bibliographic descriptive records for the following:

   1. REMOTE RESOURCES mentioned in the scope of Chapter 9. (POSSIBLE SOLUTION: refer to "remote resources" as "remote items observed", rather than "item in hand").
   2. "MADE-UP" collections of things (archival & collection level records).
   3. SERIALS. In some ways, serials. See Crystal's TF memo of 1/7/99 where she states: "...serials catalogers have tried to construct a record for the entire run of a serial, not just the one issue in hand." I would add to this that this is therefore a case where serials catalogers are indeed looking for "intent of publication and what really is the case", rather than how the one issue in hand may look.

3. RESTRAINED USE OF DESCRIPTION and TRANSCRIPTION SOURCES. 0.24 functions to inhibit and restrain description and transcription that is from "other than" a physical item.
   1. BI-MEDIA and MULTIMEDIA. In the case of "bi-media" and "multimedia", although 0.24 alludes to description and transcription under the condition that another physical item is involved by stating: "There will be need in many instances to consult the chapter dealing with the original form of the item, especially when constructing notes", catalogers (hence users) would be better served if 0.24 gave even a little more guidance than it presently gives.
   2. EMBEDDED MEDIA. In the case of "embedded media", in newer technology, for example, a CD-ROM multimedia work by Robert Winter where the musical content, including performers and other aspects of the work not obvious in or on the external carrier, needs to be described or transcribed--0.24 is lacking in instruction.
      POSSIBLE SOLUTION. 0.24 would do well to incorporate more encouraging language, such as including a statement that there will be times, particularly with new media/ and when dealing with more than one class of materials, when the cataloger must look beyond the physical item at hand (or even beyond the remote object observed) in creating a description and/or transcription in the way of notes, etc. in order to bring out the characteristics of the embedded work, which in and of itself may or may not be manifest on the physical item that is serving as the starting point for the description and transcription.

4. WHEN TO MAKE NEW RECORDS. 0.24 could function to give guidance regarding creation of new records (because it makes sense to place it there, although it is not present there now, except obliquely). Martha's wording in a private email conversation: "It provides guidance to the cataloger concerning when to make a new record, i.e., when an item should be treated as a new manifestation or a new edition of a work already represented in the catalog."
   POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Create a "When to create a new record" section somewhere in AACR2R and refer to it from 0.24 (i.e., appendix or new chapter).

5. LARGELY JUST EDITORIAL, 0.24 functions to employ NON-INCLUSIVE, NARROW LANGUAGE that is DETERRENT and INCONSISTENT with parts of Part I and is MISLEADING in that it FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE non-physical concepts and materials addressed elsewhere in Part I, causing some catalogers agony. (I shall ignore the maxim I encourage catalogers to use--for the present discussion. The maxim is: "NO AGONIZING" ). ;) Rule 0.24, uses the words/phrases: "cardinal principle"....of a "physical item"..."In short the starting point for description is the physical form of the item in hand..." The above words used together are a very strong "NO-NO" statement to catalogers with a literal bent towards following the rules. As written the rule IMPLIES that in attempting to catalog such materials, the cataloger is in VIOLATION of a fundamental rule, a central tenant that appears to be inviolable, and therefore further implies the cataloger is not-law abiding and not so good of cataloger in even attempting to cope with materials that do not have physical descriptions, because no alternative situation is acknowledged in rule 0.24 (even though such materials are already-- albeit with scant direction--acknowledged elsewhere in Part I).

   PROBLEM: EDITORIAL CLEAN UP NEEDED TO INCORPORATE BROADER, MORE INCLUSIVE AND LESS NEGATIVE LANGUAGE instead of NARROW, DETERRENT LANGUAGE. While 0.24 current language is germane to most all physical items to be cataloged--the 0.24 text could be editorially amended to allow for some VARIATION--without the current NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS for some catalogers assigned to catalog more problematic material (material without a physical description). POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: a) a clean-up and b) addition of an "escape clause". For example:

   1. Remove the word "cardinal" which is rather dated and arcane and change it to more modern language, i.e., "central" or "fundamental" (minor fix for minor problem).
   2. Add an escape clause like this one (a more major fix for more major problem):
      If a bibliographic item has no physical manifestation, but is only available via remote access on computer or is in some other way not physically manifest, but rather remotely observed or otherwise known through research, then base the description on the known or observed characteristics of the item.

I just received an Email from Ed (which I hope to have permission to send on shortly) which points out (among other things) that the 'Possible approaches' document I sent out earlier doesn't always clearly indicate the fate of Rule 0.24 itself if any given approach were to be adopted. I have modified it accordingly--hope this helps? (Thanks, Ed.) See below:

Possible approaches to modifying the cardinal principle in 0.24 (suggested by Martha Yee):

1. Simply modify the language of 0.24, leaving the rest of AACR2 intact. For example, the notion of 'physical' could be removed from the wording of 0.24, and the examples could be changed so that it is permissible to base the description on an original rather than a reproduction when that is possible without research into the nature of the original. Continue to catalog remote resources using Chapter 9. Clarify the fact that serials cataloging is not based on the "physical item" (?), or rather clarify what the "physical item" is in the case of a serial? (All available issues? A projection of the entire run, even when it does not all exist yet?)

2. Add a new chapter to cover electronic publications/resources (leaving Chapter 9 to cover what?)

3. Reorganize the current chapters 1-13 such that they are in order by the areas of the description, with a chapter on Area 1, a chapter on Area 2, etc., as recommended in the Delsey report, Part I. Within each chapter, include special rules to deal with conditions arising out of:
   1. type of publication/type of stabilization/method of distribution (seriality vs. one-time publication vs. integrating/dynamic updating)
   2. published vs. unpublished
   3. fundamental content (text/alpha-numeric content, textual/alpha- numeric sound, musical notation, musical sound, other sound, cinematographic content, graphic content, spatial/cartographic/geographic content, 3-dimensional content/artefact/object, computer program, mixed)
   4. 'type of carrier' or physical format, i.e. the physical medium onto which the fundamental content has been put in order to distribute it
   5. method of management (library vs. archival/collection level records based on provenance)
   6. reproduction (same physical format/different physical format; simultaneously released/successively released such that there is an "original")

   One could argue that the above represents a facet analysis of AACR2's chapters in an attempt to correct the cross-classification that is evident when one tries to catalog a digitized manuscript map.

   Rule 0.24 would either cease to exist, replaced by indications in the rules themselves as to which aspect (content, carrier, type of publication, etc.) takes precedence in case of conflict, or Rule 0.24 would have to be rewritten to provide a general table of precedence for use throughout the rules.

4. Reorganize the current chapters 1-13 such that they cover fundamental content only, with chapters on cataloging text/alpha-numeric content, textual/alpha-numeric sound, musical notation, musical sound, other sound, cinematographic content, graphic content, spatial/cartographic/geographic content, 3-dimensional content/artefact/object, computer program, mixed. Within each chapter, include special rules to deal with conditions arising out of:
   1. type of publication/type of stabilization/method of distribution (seriality vs. one-time publication vs. integrating/dynamic updating)
   2. published vs. unpublished
   3. 'type of carrier' or physical format, i.e. the physical medium onto which the fundamental content has been put in order to distribute it
   4. method of management (library vs. archival/collection level records based on provenance)
   5. reproduction (same physical format/different physical format; simultaneously released/successively released such that there is an "original")

   Rule 0.24 would either cease to exist, replaced by indications in the rules themselves as to which aspect other than content (carrier, type of publication, etc.) takes precedence in case of conflict, or Rule 0.24 would have to be rewritten to provide a general table of precedence for use throughout the rules.

5. Reorganize the current chapters 1-13 such that they are based on publication/stabilization type, with chapters on monographs, serials and integrating entities. Within each chapter, include special rules to deal with conditions arising out of:
   1. published vs. unpublished
   2. fundamental content (text/alpha-numeric content, textual/alpha- numeric sound, musical notation, musical sound, other sound, cinematographic content, graphic content, spatial/cartographic/geographic content, 3-dimensional content/artefact/object, computer program, mixed)
   3. 'type of carrier' or physical format, i.e. the physical medium onto which the fundamental content has been put in order to distribute it
   4. method of management (library vs. archival/collection level records based on provenance)
   5. reproduction (same physical format/different physical format; simultaneously released/successively released such that there is an "original")

   Rule 0.24 would either cease to exist, replaced by indications in the rules themselves as to which aspect other than publication/stabilization type (content, carrier, etc.) takes precedence in case of conflict, or Rule 0.24 would have to be rewritten to provide a general table of precedence for use throughout the rules.

6. Reverse the order of chapters in AACR2, putting the current 1-13 after the current 21-26, so that the cataloger classifies an item in the following order:
   1. as to authorship (main entry, Chapter 21)
   2. as to work (main entry, Chapters 21 and 25)
   3. as to edition (represented by a bibliographic record; change 0.24 to a rule for when to make a new bibliographic record?)
   4. as to physical format and distributor (represented by holdings records? Include in AACR2 rules for creating holdings records attached to bibliographic records?)

7. Add a rule at 0.24 to guide catalogers in deciding when to make a new record, i.e. when an item should be treated as a new manifestation or a new edition of a work already represented in the catalog.

8. Let 1.0E1 carry out the function of recording the principle of transcription? Or recommend that JSC record this principle as part of their general statement of the principles of AACR2R?

Note that the chapters of AACR2 could be radically reorganized to increase the ease of use of the rules for catalogers, and to encourage a more principled application of the rules, without affecting the resultant records in the least. They could still be ISBD-based records that look just like records created under current AACR2R rules.

Note also that these approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive; several of them could be combined to make our final recommendation.

Martha


5. Functions of Rule 0.24, Email from Martha Yee, Jan. 11, 1999

One of Laurel's recent Emails made me realize we should probably include a specific list of functions in the agenda. I have created the following as a first draft--can anyone suggest any others? I'll give you a couple of days to respond, and then add this to the agenda and resend it...

Functions of Rule 0.24, as suggested by Martha Yee:

1. Provides guidance in the cataloging of items with multiple characteristics that must currently be cataloged using more than one chapter in AACR2R.

2. Provides guidance to the cataloger concerning when to make a new record, i.e., when an item should be treated as a new manifestation or a new edition of a work already represented in the catalog.

3. Instructs the cataloger to use the physical item as the primary source of information for identifying particular manifestations of particular editions of particular works; in other words, Rule 0.24 introduces the principle of transcription from the item as the basis of the description.

I have tried to include above only those functions that I think were intended by the writers of AACR2R and that are followed in practice by working catalogers. My purpose is to try to record the functions, so that we can make sure that our recommendations allow the code to continue to carry out those functions, even if we recommend a different way of carrying them out. Laurel's very useful document should be read in conjunction with this, since her purpose is to be more critical about the language in Rule 0.24, pointing out where it SEEMS to function in a way that no one would want it to function. More specifically, I have left out Laurel's functions 2 and 5 here, for the following reasons:

Function 2: Since people have been using AACR2R to catalog remote resources, serials and collections for some time, I don't think we can argue that the cardinal principle ACTUALLY functions to exclude these types of materials, nor that that is the intent of Rule 0.24. Laurel's point is well-taken, however, that it is unwise of AACR2R to use the term 'physical item,' when in fact it has rules that cover these other types of material.

Function 5: Here I hope Laurel will agree that her purpose (writing a critical piece about the nature of the language used in AACR2R) has caused her logic to go a bit astray. For example, I don't think the writers of AACR2 intended one of the functions of Rule 0.24 to be to mislead and to be inconsistent. Again, I think her points are well-taken about the inadvisability of using this type of language, but here I am trying to focus on the ACTUAL functions of Rule 0.24, so that whatever recommendations we make, AACR2R will continue to carry out these functions in the way we want it to do so...

Thanks...

Martha


6. Defining expression, Email from Martha Yee, July 14, 1998

DEFINING EXPRESSION

by Martha M. Yee

In what follows, I have transcribed the current definition of edition in AACR2, and the definition of expression proposed by the Functional Requirements study, and then I have proposed a draft of a rule for when to make a new record that could have the effect of defining 'expression,' rather than 'manifestation,' as the object of a record in AACR2. This is all just for discussion purposes, to get the issues out on the table...

AACR2 definition of edition:

Edition: Books, pamphlets, fascicles, single sheets, etc. All copies produced from essentially the same type image (whether by direct contact or by photographic or other methods) and issued by the same entity. See also Facsimile reproduction, Impression, Issue, Reprint.

Edition: Computer files. All copies embodying essentially the same content and issued by the same entity.

Edition: Unpublished items. all copies made from essentially the same original production (e.g. the original and carbon copies of a typescript).

Edition: Other materials. All copies produced from essentially the same master copy and issued by the same entity. A change in the identity of the distributor does not mean a change of edition. See also Facsimile reproduction, Issue.

FRBR definition of expression:

The intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form of alpha-numeric, musical, or choreographic notation, sound, image, object, movement, etc., or any combination of such forms.

An expression is the specific intellectual or artistic form that a work takes each time it is "realized." Expression encompasses, for example, the specific words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. that result from the realization of a work in the form of a text, or the particular notes, phrasing, etc. resulting from the realization of a musical work. The boundaries of the entity expression are defined, however, so as to exclude aspects of physical form, such as typeface and page layout, that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of the work as such.

Inasmuch as the form of expression is an inherent characteristic of the expression, any change in form (e.g., from alpha-numeric notation to spoken word) results in a new expression. Similarly, changes in the intellectual conventions or instruments that are employed to express a work (e.g. translation from one language to another) result in the production of a new expression. Strictly speaking, any change in intellectual or artistic content constitutes a change in expression. Thus, if a text is revised or modified, the resulting expression is considered to be a new expression, no matter how minor the modification may be.

Examples

- w1 Ellwanger's Tennis--bis zum Turnierspieler
- e1 the original German text
- e2 the English translation by Wendy Gill
- ....

- w1 Franz Schubert's Trout quintet
- e1 the composer's score
- e2 a performance by the Amadeus Quartet and Hephzibah Menuhin on piano
- e3 a performance by the Cleveland Quartet and Yo-Yo Ma on the cello

Changes that signal a change in expression:

1. Change in statement of responsibility or credits (new statements of subsidiary authorship).
2. Change in edition statement that indicates a substantive change in the underlying expression.
3. Change in extent.
4. Addition of illustrations, maps, bibliographies or other supplementary material not present in other expressions.
5. An explicit indication of changes (including corrections) of content; includes changes in contents notes.
6. Change in language.
7. Change in geographic coverage (serials only?).

Changes in the marks of identification that are important enough to treat as a change in expression ('title-expression?' 'title-edition?') even if there is no change in the underlying expression:

1. Change in title or subtitle.
2. Change in series.
3. Change in the form of the statement of responsibility or credits?

Changes that should not be held to create a new expression:

NOTE: If any of these changes occur in conjunction with changes listed above, they should be noted in the new bibliographic record that results. However, if they occur in isolation, not associated with any change in the underlying expression, they should not cause the creation of a new record.

1. Change in edition statement, not associated with change in expression; e.g. absence or presence of "book club edition," "first edition," or "paperback edition" statements.
2. Change in publisher or distributor, as long as the change is not associated with change in expression.
3. Change in place of publication, as long as the change is not associated with change in expression.
4. Change in publication date, printing date or copyright date, as long as the change is not associated with change in expression.
5. Change in manifestation or carrier, e.g. change from audiocassette to CD, or from text to microform, or from text to digitized text, or from col. to b&w, as long as the change is not associated with change in expression.
6. Addition, deletion or change of an ISBN, as long as the change is not associated with change in expression.
7. Difference in paper, typography or binding, as long as the change is not associated with change in expression.
8. Difference in presence or absence of closed captioning.
9. Addition or deletion of advertising matter.

I am attaching (in Word 6.0/Windows 95--I hope all of you can read it at this point in time, but let me know if you need a different format) a draft of a glossary I have been working on for some time, in the hopes that we might be able to agree on some common terminology in our discussions. In particular, I think it is important for anyone discussing the concept of 'edition' or 'object of a record' to be quite specific about which particular definitions of 'edition' they want to include and which they want to exclude in the coverage of the discussion. However, I think it may be useful to have a commonly agreed upon set of definitions for the other terms in this document as well. Let me know what you think of the above assertions, as well as the actual glossary. If it is to be useful, it must be agreed upon by all of us, not simply imposed from above (smile)... Thanks...

Martha

...

CLASS OF MATERIALS
The broad class or specific class of materials to which an item belongs. (Delsey definition)

COLLECTION
A collection of documents, normally formed by or around a person, family, corporate body, or subject, assembled by a library or by a previous owner. (Delsey definition)

CONTAINER
Any housing for a [document], a group of [documents], or part of a [document] that is physically separable form the material being housed. (AACR2 glossary as modified in brackets by Delsey)

CONTENT
The intellectual or artistic substance contained in a document or document part. (Delsey definition)

CONTENT PART
An individual component of the intellectual or artistic content of a document or document part. (Delsey definition)

COPY
A single specimen of a document. (Delsey definition)

DOCUMENT
An object that comprises intellectual and/or artistic content and is conceived, produced, and/or issued as an entity. (Delsey definition)

DOCUMENT PART
A physically separate component of a document. (Delsey definition)

EDITION

EDITION 1 The classical definition, of course, is that of a resetting of the type. That I would call the strict bibliographer's use of the term. Such an edition may not in fact have any significant textual differences, if the typesetter was very good and simply replicated a previous edition word for word. However, the recognition that, in the days of the printing press, resetting of type offered a prime opportunity for making changes in the text, led to edition in this sense being assumed to be of interest to not just bibliographers, but also library users mainly interested in texts rather than in the physical history of the book. AACR2 broadened this edition a bit to cover type images (rather than reset type) and master copies (for materials that use other means of expression besides text).

To distinguish between the case a) in which two documents have the exact same content stream (text, sound and/or image), but different infixion (e.g. different setting of type, different playback speed) and the case b) in which two documents have had revisions in the content stream introduced in the course of changing the infixion (e.g. text variants between settings of the type), I would propose that we call the former CONTENT IDENTICAL EDITION (EDITION 1.1) and the latter VARIANT CONTENT EDITION (EDITION 1.2). Note that in standard cataloging, catalogers have no way of knowing which of these they are dealing with once the infixion has changed, as signalled by such clues as a change in paging or a difference in playing time, unless the item carries an explicit statement concerning differences in content, e.g. 'revised edition.'

EDITION 2 The looser cataloger's use of the term is reflected in the AACR1 quote, 'to distinguish it from ... other editions of the same work, and, in some instances, from other issues of the same edition.' The fact that different issues of the same edition can have quite different title pages, including variant titles which can be cited by users and sought in catalogs, and the fact that the same type image (setting of type) can be reissued with additional material, has led catalogers to use a looser definition than bibliographers that might be characterized as 'same work, but with differences in content or representation significant to users (even if the text contained is the same according to the EDITION 1 definition).' AACR2's glossary definitions make reference to changes in issuing entity causing creation of a new edition, for example.

According to both definitions, a change in text, such as revision, abridgement or translation, would create a new edition.

To distinguish between the case a) in which two documents represent the same EDITION 1 but have different titles or series titles on the title page (different title page representation), and the case b) in which two documents represent the same EDITION 1 but have appended material such as commentaries and the like, I would propose that the former be called TITLE EDITION (EDITION 2.1) and the latter be called EDITION BY APPENDAGE (EDITION 2.2). Note that changes in representation other than changes in title are covered below under Manifestation.

The situation is complicated by the fact that one particular edition may actually be more than one of the above types. For example, a CONTENT IDENTICAL EDITION (1.1) may also be an EDITION BY APPENDAGE (2.2), as when the type image of an earlier edition is reissued with a new commentary. Therefore, I would suggest that the following priority list of types of edition should be followed, and the highest category into which a particular edition falls should be held to determine what type of edition it is:

Variant content edition (1.2)
Edition by appendage (2.2)
Title edition (2.1)
Identical content edition (1.1)

According to this practice, the example above of a content identical edition with an appendage would be considered an edition by appendage.

If two items represent themselves as the same work, and the only differences between them consist of one or more of those listed below, current practice is to consider the two items to be two editions of the same work, i.e., separate bibliographic records, each with the same main entry.

Differences associated with a variant content edition (1.2):

Different statement of subsidiary authorship such as inclusion of a different translator or editor
Different edition statement (connected to change in text, e.g. different extent)
Resetting of type (usually signalled by different paging)
In nonbook materials, other change in actual extent, such as playing time
Translation into another language
Revision of a text by the same author(s) as the original
Reproduction of an art work
Arrangement, transcription, etc. of the work of a composer
Performing a musical work on a sound recording

Differences associated with an edition by appendage (2.2):

Difference in presence or absence of illustrations in physical description
Addition of illustrations to a text
Addition of commentary or biographical/critical material when the original work is emphasized in title page representation
Providing a choreography for an existing musical work, such as a ballet
Adding an instrumental accompaniment or additional parts to a musical work

Differences associated with a title edition (2.1):

Different title not associated with a change in extent
Different series not associated with a change in extent
Different statement of responsibility, such as variation in the author's name, not associated with a change in extent

Examples of what can vary between the editions of a work:

Title:

Smollett, Tobias George, 1721-1771. The expedition of Humphry Clinker ...

Smollett, Tobias George, 1721-1771. Humphry Clinker ...

Statement of responsibility:

The expedition of Humphry Clinker / by the author of Roderick Random.

The expedition of Humphry Clinker / by Dr. Smollett.

The expedition of Humphry Clinker / by Tobias Smollet, M.D., with 10 plates by T. Rowlandson.

L'expedition d'Humphry Clinker / traduction de Jean Giono et Catherine d'Ivernois.

Publisher and publication date:

The expedition of Humphry Clinker / by Tobias Smollett, M.D., with 10 plates by T. Rowlandson. -- London : Printed for H.D. Symonds and T. Kay, 1793.

The expedition of Humphry Clinker / Tobias Smollett ; edited by Peter Miles. -- London : Everyman, 1993.

Illustrations:

The expedition of Humphry Clinker / Tobias Smollett. -- Ware : Wordsworth Classics, 1995.
333 p. ; 20 cm.

The expedition of Humphry Clinker / Tobias Smollett ; introduction and notes by Thomas R. Preston ; the text edited by O.M. Brack, Jr. -- Athens, Ga. : University of Georgia Press, c1990.
ix, 500 p. : ill., map ; 24 cm.

Paging:

The expedition of Humphry Clinker / by Tobias George Smollett. -- New York, Century, 1902.
372 p.

The expedition of Humphry Clinker / by Tobias George Smollett. -- New York, Century, 1904.
372 p.

(Same edition of the same work (same setting of type), despite the different publication dates.)

Series statement:

The expedition of Humphry Clinker / Tobias Smollett ; edited by Peter Miles. -- London : Everyman, 1993.
xxxiii, 444 p.

Humphry Clinker : an authoritative text, contemporary responses, criticism / Tobias Smollett ; edited by James L. Thorson. -- 1st ed. -- New York : Norton, c1983.
xxi, 436 p. : ill. ; 22 cm. -- (A Norton critical edition)

I would like to argue that even a unique item is potentially a particular manifestation of a particular edition of a particular work. If it is argued that the term 'edition' implies publication and implies multiple copies, perhaps we need a new term that encompasses edition and a unique item with the potential to go into editions.

Also note that a particular edition can itself have editions, as when an author creates two different versions of a work (two version of King Lear?) which themselves go into multiple editions.

EXPRESSION
The intellectual or artistic realization of a work. Variant texts incorporating revisions or updates to an earlier text, abridgements or enlargements of an existing text, or the addition of parts or an accompaniment to a musical composition, translations from one language to another, musical transcriptions and arrangements, and dubbed or subtitled versions of a film are expressions of the same work. (FRBR 3.2.1, 3.2.2).

I don't see any significant difference in this definition from EDITIONS 1.2 and 2.2 above. Am I missing something? However, neither expression nor manifestation seem to deal adequately with title editions (2.1) which can affect users' citations to a particular work.

INFIXION
The formatting of intellectual or artistic content. (Delsey definition) Examples from the Delsey document include:

Sound recording
Type of recording (analog, digital, optical, magnetic)
Playing speed
Groove characteristic (grooves per inch, lateral vs. vertical)
Track characteristic (no. of tracks, placement of tracks)
Kind of sound (mono., stereo.)
Recording/reproduction characteristic (Dolby)

Film
Aspect ratio (anamorphic)
Projection speed (fps)
Sound characteristic (sd. vs. silent, opt vs. mag, separate or on film)
Form of print (generation)

Videorecording
Videorecording characteristic (Beta vs. VHS, high band vs. low band)
Sound characteristic (sd. vs. si.)

Computer file Recording density

Sectoring
Sound characteristic

Graphic content
Colour

Microform
Polarity
Reduction ratio

Alternative format materials
Format

ITEM
A document or set of documents in any physical form, published, issued, or treated as an entity, and as such forming the basis for a single bibliographic description. (AACR2 glossary)

A single exemplar of a manifestation. Item is a concrete entity. It may comprise more than one physical object. (FRBR)

The item may equate to any one of a number of candidate entities: Document, Document part, Copy, Content part, or Collection. (Delsey definition of Item) According to Delsey, item is abstract.

Note that in AACR1 this term seems to have been used as a synonym for 'edition/issue' when applied to nonbook materials. The Paris principles just refer to 'editions of a work' to mean the items that contain the work in the various ways in which it has been made concrete. In AACR2, however, item encompasses manifestation, expression, all definitions of edition above, and related work; it just means the object of a separate record. It is a term that is much less meaningful than the term 'edition;' it is not used by library users, and it is really just functioning as a cipher term to stand in for 'object of a cataloging record.' It does not convey to users the meaning 'same work, but with different intellectual or artistic content,' as the term 'edition' does.

MANIFESTATION
The physical embodiment of an expression of a work. A manifestation represents all the physical objects that bear the same characteristics, in respect to both intellectual content and physical form. When the production process involves changes in physical form, the resulting product is considered a new manifestation. Changes in physical form include changes affecting display characteristics (e.g., a change in typeface, size of font, page layout, etc.), changes in physical medium (e.g., a change from paper to microfilm as the medium of conveyance), and changes in the container (e.g., a change from cassette to cartridge as the container for a tape). Where the production process involves a publisher, producer, distributor, etc., and there are changes signaled in the product that are related to publication, marketing, etc. (e.g. a change in publisher, repackaging, etc.), the resulting product may be considered a new manifestation (FRBR 3.2.3).

Note that this definition of manifestation, if adopted in AACR2, would require the removal from EDITION 2 of the requirement for issuance from the same entity.

In order to be able to distinguish between the manifestation created by a change in physical form and the manifestation created by a change in publisher, I would propose that we call them PHYSICAL FORM MANIFESTATION and PUBLISHER MANIFESTATION respectively. The latter would cover cases in which two documents represent the same EDITION 1, but have different title page representation such as different edition statements, different publisher or distributor statements, different publication, release or distribution dates, etc.

only differences between them consist of one or more of the following:
Different publisher
Different publication date
Different physical format
Different edition statement but same text (e.g., 'microform edition')
Different edition statement (not associated with a change in extent)

PHYSICAL CARRIER
The physical form of the carrier for the content of a document or document part (Delsey definition)

RELATED WORK
A new work that has been generated from a previously existing work by means of adaptation, paraphrasing, rewriting, etc. (Martha Yee's proposed definition, derived from the FRBR definition of work)

We consider the following changes to be substantial enough to cause the creation of a new work (signalled by a change in main entry):
rewriting of a text in another form, e.g. the dramatization of a novel
filming of a play
adaptation of an art work from one medium to another (e.g. an engraving of a painting)
changing of the title of a work entered under title (including both monographs and serials)
revision of a text accompanied by a change in representation of authorship or change in title
addition of commentary or biographical/critical material when the commentary or biographical/critical material is emphasized in title page representation
free transcription of the work of a composer
merely basing a musical work on other music, e.g. variations on a theme
setting a pre-existing text to music

WORK
A distinct intellectual or artistic creation. Paraphrases, rewritings, adaptations for children, parodies, musical variations on a theme and free transcriptions of a musical composition, adaptations of a work from one literary or art form to another (e.g., dramatizations, adaptations from one medium of the graphic arts to another, etc.), abstracts, digests and summaries represent new works. (FRBR 3.2.1) Work is an abstract entity. (FRBR, p. 16)


8. Edition and publication as found in ISBD(ER), EMail from Laurel Jizba, Jan. 9, 1999

MOVING DISCUSSION FORWARD. In order to help move the discussion along as far as a) When to create a new record and b) how to think about the concept of publication as far as electronic resources, I am a attaching a sort of pharaphrase/ quotation regarding edition and publication from the by now internationally agreed upon ISBD standard for electronic resources. I spoke to Martha about this in advance and the two of us agreed that quoting a small part would probably be ok for internal Task Force purposes. However, I'm a little nervous about submitting a straight quote so I'm going to paraphrase most of it, where possible.

PURPOSE: COMMON UNDERSTANDING. The purpose for doing this is to let everyone on the 0.24 Task Force get a real sense and a common understanding for the ideas behind the language in the ISBD(ER) and perhaps let Task Force members begin to formulate their own analogies about how all or part of those ideas/ that language might or might not apply to other classes of materials in AACR2R, and ultimately to think about applications to 0.24 and linkages or language in 0.24 regarding when to create a new record and to shed light on the concept of edition in this context.

1. EDITION for an electronic resource, remote or not remote (paraphrased from text on pp. 46, 47 and 7, ISBD(ER))

   In sum, an edition originates from a master copy and is published or issued, either with an identifying edition statement or by cataloger supplied information based on observation of certain characteristics that reflect change in the content. The edition statement may use the word edition or related terms (version, release, etc.). BUT, in the case of the related terms, the related terms are used for other more minor change indications and so are not in and of themselves reliable. (However, whatever terms appear are indeed transcribed). When nothing appears regarding edition, if other info. about the edition statement is known by the cataloger, the cataloger supplies the information in brackets. When TO consider an item a new edition. DO consider an item a new edition when there has been change in the intellectual or artistic content. This could be, for example, additions, deletions, a programming language change, a modification in the operating system. When NOT to consider an item a new edition. Do NOT consider an item a new edition if: a) the size of the carrier changes, b) the type of the carrier changes, c) the printer-related file format changes (ASCII to Postscript, etc.), d) the system changes, e) the character code or blocking or recording densities change, f) the output or display format changes. But as an escape clause, the cataloger is given the option of creating a new record if they really want to. The edition statement relating to the item as a whole is preferred over an edition statement relating just to a part or parts. Edition statements from a part or parts are given in notes if desired. * For frequently updated resources, the edition statement is omitted and a note is made about it being frequently updated.

2. PUBLICATION for remote electronic resources (paraphrased from text on p. 11 and p. 55, ISBD(ER))

   All remote resources are published. If a formal statement is available, it is given. If not, standard AACR2R abbreviations are used to show the null condition: "s.l." and "s.n.". Publication, production and distribution are for practical purposes considered to be the same concepts and to also include the concepts release and issue. The above terms are distinct from physical manufacturing activities.

   *Whipped cream with chocolate sprinkles may also be added if desired.
   

   www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/personal/jca/ccda/tf-024f.html