MEDIA CATALOGING: WHITHER? by Rebecca Adler INTRODUCTION The descriptive cataloging of media materials has confronted both catalogers and media users with virtually intractable problems. Plagued at first by the unique features of the materials themselves, catalogers saw the "non-print" items that suddenly overwhelmed them in their abundance and their diverse nature as posing particular difficulties with regard to their being integrated into a comprehensive catalog. Nor did the advent soon afterwards of computer databases much remedy the situation. The apparent inability to classify appropriately all the materials remained the essential stumbling block. At the time, the principal cataloging code for libraries in the United States, Canada and Great Britain was the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), which provided at best complex and sometimes inconsistent directions in their approach to non-book formats. This untenable situation led to the creation of some media-exclusive cataloging codes, among them, the Canadian Code and the code of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). The proliferation of different subject heading lists, such as the Sears's and that of the Library of Congress (which some catalogers felt better defined the new formats, served to further confuse matters (Clarkson 1985, 277). There followed a period in which catalogers began to recognize the necessity of emphasizing not only the attributes that were common to all formats (such as content, provenance, etc.), but also to describe the specific attributes of media materials (running time, producer, etc.). These access points were studied and expanded, so that the intellectual, artistic and technical contributions of individuals and companies toward a particular production could be adequately treated. Further developments in the standardization of bibliographic description, such as the most recently revised Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2R), and in the standardization of machine-readable cataloging, such as the MARC Record, made it possible for media materials to be included in national bibliographic databases. Thus the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), the Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN) and a number of other machine-readable databases took on the prominence they presently enjoy. Through these bibliographic utilities, member libraries and media services can now "copy" or "share" other libraries' cataloging, and thereby eliminate some of the need to create original cataloging -- a costly and time-consuming endeavor. The common elements and shared standards of these broad-based machine-readable databases also made it possible for media materials to become an integral part of what was to become the next technological phase to be put in place -- the local online public access catalogs (OPACs). Recent developments in keyword searching enable OPAC systems to provide diverse access points by which media materials can be successfully searched. One can now look for a film director through an author search, a screen writer through the credit fields, or even a distributor through the added entries in the corporate field of the record. Some OPACs even allow for the combination of access points, such as subject matter and format of material (Frost 1987, 83). Nonetheless, despite the broad recognition of the cataloging community of the need for an integrated instrument, and despite the technological developments of online systems, some college media centers continue to hold onto a plethora of locally developed cataloging schemes that have their origins in the period when media collections were not an integral part of the overall library collection. A case in point are some of the campuses of the City University of New York, which comprises 19 separate college campuses within New York City. Although most of the member colleges are currently participating in an online public access catalog (CUNY-Plus) based on NOTIS (Northwestern Online Total Integrated System), they continue all the same to participate in an exclusively media CUNY-wide union catalog, and maintain local campus media catalogs as well. (The CUNY-wide catalog, by the way, facilitated inter-campus loans of media items among the university's spread-out campuses.) And so, by not being able to work within a comprehensive cataloging policy, many of the CUNY campuses are in effect tripling their cataloging workload. A LOCAL SURVEY In March 1994 the Cataloging Committee of the Instructional Media Consortium of the CUNY Council of Educational Communications and Technology (IMC-CECT) conducted an informal survey in order to try to shed light on this perplexing issue. A letter was sent to the respective IMC representative on each CUNY campus, requesting him or her to complete a questionnaire (Appendix) or to have the campus person best qualified, most likely the media cataloger,do so. Clearly, with a pool of only nineteen, we were not expecting to produce a statistically valid study, nonetheless we thought that the answers we received would have some weight in their numbers. Regrettably, when we examined the actual returns, we realized that, for a number of reasons, they were not capable of more than anecdotal significance, however interesting that anecdotal information was. It turned out that only twelve campuses of the nineteen responded (even though the letter was followed up by a telephone inquiry). Furthermore, since the responses variously came from different people in the organization, depending upon the particular administrative set-up at each campus, it was evident that they were colored by different degrees of knowledgeability. The answers, and the lack of answers, give some insight into the difficulties and confusion that continue to reign. SURVEY RESPONSES For example, we learned that some of the respondents are hanging onto the CUNY union catalog because a) it contains media materials exclusively; b) it is relatively easy to use; c) the catalog itself exists in both print and electronic formats; d) paperwork for lending and borrowing can be easily generated; and e) it also gives access to holdings that, because of a time lag, are not yet listed in CUNY-Plus. Respondents also mentioned the following disadvantages concerning the present cataloging situation: a) it perpetuates duplicate cataloging (a disadvantage foreseen); b) updates -from a year to eighteen months -- are untimely; c) the subject headings (homegrown, for the most part) are too broad; d) frequent errors and inconsistencies appear in the bibliographic record. With regard to the local catalogs, which varied from database systems to word-processed lists, respondents agreed that they remained useful because they were produced by media people, who therefore exercised a certain control as to the product. The local catalogs could also be distributed to faculty members, and could be used to create tailor-designed "mediagraphies." Finally, the local catalogs gave the media personnel a way to keep their own acquisition lists before the items were cataloged by technical services. The positive things that were noted about CUNY-Plus were: a) one could access all CUNY colleges; b) the system integrates print and non-print sources; c) it permits easy downloading of records from OCLC; d) items can be quickly added to the database; e) the program provides numerous access points. Among the disadvantages of CUNY-Plus cited were: a) the catalog is not truly comprehensive at this point. Not all AV centers have put in their materials; b) the program is inconsistent in searching with format terms, such as video, video? (truncation), videocassette, etc.; c) one can only use media qualifiers in a keyword search, not a subject search; d) the cataloging levels, inasmuch as the contributions come from different campuses with different practices, are seriously non-uniform. Part of the problem here, of course, are inconsistencies within the OCLC/RLIN systems themselves. The lack of uniformity relates to the larger historical problem that the integration of media holdings into the general library function took place in many different ways on different campuses. Media cataloging on some campuses is performed by the catalog specialist, on other campuses by the media personnel themselves. The resulting discrepancies only increased as media materials diversified. Thus the descriptive cataloging problem now faces its greatest challenge in how to deal with the rapidly burgeoning quantity of interactive multimedia materials being created. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Library of Congress has not, at this point, promulgated an integrated format for multimedia materials.T he major area of concern remains exactly how to depict these materials which now represent different formats and multiple parts, and utilize a variety of hardware. The new Guidelines for Bibliographic Descriptions of Interactive Multimedia (Interactive Multimedia Guidelines Review Task Force 1994), recently issued by the ALA, are defining a new general materials description (gmd) for the field, and should bring more order to the situation. Thus, as media centers acquire more of these kinds of materials, and libraries integrate them into the collection, catalogers are faced with making fewer decisions based on judgment. For now, one of the primary methods in dealing with such materials is, according to the catalog theoretician Sheila Intner, to "select one part as the principal thing being cataloged and let the rest of the parts be treated subordinately as 'accompanying materials' (Intner 1991, 3). Therefore catalogers must judge what is the dominant part of an item. (It goes without saying that they must also be aware of what hardware is necessary to use the material.) Is it the computer software or the video recording that dominates an interactive video project? A crucial issue inherent within the situation, and one that has emerged in the recent past for all media, involves the cataloger's knowledge and familiarity with the medium. Rulemakers responded by applying the basic rules of transcription -- that information could be excluded when it was not textually available on the actual item. However, it has always been taken for granted that catalogers had a moderate understanding of the physical characteristics of the materials to be cataloged, in order to interpret the rules from the perspective of use and user need (Intner 1991, 4). These added complications with interactive materials almost bring the entire media cataloging problem right back to the drawing board. From our observations, although there has been enormous progress technologically, conceptually, and operationally, progress on the level of implementation remains slow for many of the reasons stated above. A better working relationship must be developed between the media specialist and the cataloging specialist. If the cataloger is challenged by how to describe a particular interactive CD-ROM, he or she should not have to deal with any bureaucratic or political complexities (that arose historically because of natural territorial rivalries between the traditional print and the non-traditional non-print domains) in asking the media person for assistance. It would help a great deal if locally on each campus more funding were made available to improve, in the short run, the media cataloging now being maintained. More importantly, and perhaps as a follow-up to the recently published Guidelines, one might look forward to a major conference involving catalogers, media catalogers, and media experts being convened to set a universal media cataloging policy for the entire country. In the interim, while awaiting that day, media people and their cataloging colleagues will have to improvise and make do as best they can. APPENDIX Cataloging Survey March, 1994 Please return via mail to David Turkiew, New York City Technical College, 300 Jay St., Room AG35, Brooklyn , NY 11201 or via fax (718) 260-5198, attention David Turkiew, Media Services, no later than April 8, 1994. NOTE: All responses pertain to your primary media collection; that is, the collection available for IMC lending. For questions requesting a judgment scale, please use a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 = critically important, 1 = totally unimportant. Institution: _________________ Phone: ______________ Survey completed by: _______________ On your campus, is the primary media collection managed by the Library? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ If not, by what office? _________________________________________________________________ What is the size of your media collection? ______ items _________________________________________________________________ Approximately how many titles are added each year? ______ items _________________________________________________________________ What title is held by the person who performs your primary media cataloging? _________________________________________________________________ Is this a dedicated position? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ Is this a full-time position? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ If not a full-time position, what percentage of the person's time is devoted to cataloging? ______% _________________________________________________________________ Is this position under your jurisdiction? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ Regarding your institution's participation in CUNY-PLUS: What percentage of your media is currently cataloged in CUNY-PLUS? _____% _________________________________________________________________ From the time a new title is available, how long, on average, does it take for a new acquisition to appear in CUNY-PLUS? _________________________________________________________________ Is this an acceptable time frame for your purposes? yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ What would you consider to be an acceptable time frame? _________________________________________________________________ Is your area responsible for CUNY-PLUS cataloging? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ If, not, what office performs this function for you? _________________________________________________________________ Is OCLC used as a mechanism for cataloging CUNY-PLUS? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ What do you consider the three best features of CUNY-PLUS? 1. 2. 3. _________________________________________________________________ What do you consider to be the three greatest shortcomings of CUNY-PLUS? 1. 2. 3. _________________________________________________________________ Would the inter-library loan features of CUNY-PLUS adequately meet your needs as concerns the CETC-IMC circulation of media? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ Regarding you familiarity with CUNY-PLUS: For general access purposes, do you feel you could benefit from formal training (in CUNY-PLUS)? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ For cataloging purposes, do you feel the person(s) responsible has (have) received adequate formal training in the efficient use of CUNY-PLUS? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ For reporting and bibliographic research, do you feel the person(s) responsible has (have) received adequate formal training in the efficient use of CUNY-PLUS? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ Regarding your institution's participation in the CETC-IMC catalog: What percentage of your media is currently cataloged in the CETC-IMC catalog? ___% _________________________________________________________________ While it was always our hope to update the catalog twice per year, the current update time lag is approximately 18 months, for both electronic and print editions. _________________________________________________________________ Is this an acceptable time frame for your purposes? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ What would you consider an acceptable time frame for electronic catalog updates? _________________________________________________________________ What would you consider an acceptable time frame for printed catalog updates? _________________________________________________________________ What do you consider to be the three best features of the CETC-IMC catalog? 1. 2. 3. _________________________________________________________________ What do you consider to be the three greatest shortcomings of the CETC-IMC catalog? 1. 2. 3. _________________________________________________________________ How important is the print version of the CETC-IMC titles catalog? (1 to 10) _________________________________________________________________ How important is the print version of the CETC-IMC subject headings catalog? (1 to 10) _________________________________________________________________ How important is the print version of the CETC-IMC series catalog? (1 to 10) _________________________________________________________________ In view of the availability (and lack of availability) of CUNY-PLUS, how important is it that CETC-IMC still maintains its own catalog? (1 to 10) _________________________________________________________________ How important a factor is the linked booking component of the ACCESS program in maintaining the CETC-IMC catalog? (1 to 10) _________________________________________________________________ How important is an automated booking system, where media booking would be a computer-to-computer process (requiring no confirmation of availability, etc.)? (1 to 10) _________________________________________________________________ If the booking component were independent of the catalog (as was the original version of the booking program), would CUNY-PLUS be adequate for catalog research? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ Regarding you institution's use of other cataloging mechanisms: Do you use any other cataloging mechanisms (including simple or complex in-house systems, commercial library cataloging systems, word-processed lists, etc.)? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ If so, please identify the system(s) below: _________________________________________________________________ System 1: Who performs the cataloging in this system? _________________________________________________________________ What shortcomings does this system overcome? _________________________________________________________________ If these needs were addressed by the CUNY-PLUS or the CETC-IMC catalogs, would you continue to use this system? Yes__ No__ _________________________________________________________________ System 2: [same questions as for System 1] _________________________________________________________________ System 3: [same questions as for System 2] REFERENCES 1. American Library Association. Association for Library Collections and Technical Services. Cataloging and Classification: Description and Access Section. Interactive Media Guidelines Review Task Force. 1994. Guidelines for bibliographic description of interactive multimedia. Chicago: American Library Association. 2. Clarkson, Sara. 1985. "Cataloging Non-Print Material." In Media Librarianship, edited by John W. Ellison. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers. 3. Frost, Carolyn O. 1987. "Nonbook Materials in the Online Access Catalog." In Policy and Practice in Bibliographic Control of Nonbook Media, edited by Sheila S. Intner and Richard Smiraglia. Chicago: American Library Association. 4. Intner, Sheila S. 1991. "Observations on Changing Cataloging Rules and Interactive Media." Technicalities 11(November). Rebecca Adler, Assistant Professor in the Library Department of The College of Staten Island (CUNY), is the Coordinator of Media Services for the college. MC Journal: The Journal of Academic Media Librarianship V2#2 Fall 1994 ISSN 1069-6792 October 1994 ***************************************************************** This article is copyright (C) 1994 by Rebecca Adler. All Rights Reserved. MC Journal: The Journal of Academic Media Librarianship is copyright (C) 1994 by Lori Widzinski. All commercial use requires permission. *****************************************************************