MARC: Is Playaway a Sound Recording or an Electronic Resource?

Do you speak Cataloguish?  Even in Libraryland, not everyone does.  I’m far from fluent myself, but I do have an MLIS degree, and I can speak it a little.  When questions about MARC records and cataloging practices come up at Playaway, they usually find their way to me.

In early 2007, the Cataloging Policy Committee (CAPC) of the organization of OnLine Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC), working in conjunction with the Descriptive Cataloging Subcommittee of the Bibliographic Control Committee of the Music Library Association, formed the “Joint Task Force on Best Practice Guidelines for Cataloging Playaways.”  By the middle of 2007, the group had issued its guidelines and recommended practices.  These are available online at the OLAC website.

At the time, we at Playaway were overjoyed that our preloaded player had become a significant enough part of the library landscape to warrant serious cataloging attention.  Since then, however, it’s become clear that one of the group’s recommendations is causing confusion for library staff and patrons.

By the slimmest of margins, the task group decided to recommend that the GMD or “General Materials Designation” (the MARC 245 field, sub-field “h”) for audiobooks on Playaway should be “electronic resource” rather than “non-musical sound recording” (NSR).  Although I’ve talked to people who understand the reasoning that went into the decision, sooner or later, everyone I’ve spoken with admits that the decision doesn’t pass the common-sense test.

The problem, it seems, was that the task group consisted entirely of academic librarians, most of whom were not attuned to the world of audiobooks in public libraries.  Rather than thinking in terms of Playaway as a physical audio format that patrons and staff equate with other physical formats such as CD and cassette, the task group seems to have been trying to look ahead to the next generation of cataloguing standards, RDA – the supposed successor to AACR2, the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules.    

RDA – now there’s a complicated dialect of Cataloguish that I don’t speak very well, but then very few people do.   RDA is a much-delayed, much-debated standards framework that seeks to overcome the limitations of current MARC standards as embodied in AACR2.  But the earliest date at which anyone anticipates adoption of the standards to begin is late in 2010. 

In the meantime – and probably for a long time after 2010 – the problem with the GMD decision is significant.

Playaways are most often found in public libraries.  Public library patrons and staff (not all of whom are trained cataloguers by any means) are accustomed to seeing audiobooks on cassette and CD listed as non-musical sound recordings.   In fact, many Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs) display a special symbol that distinguishes audiobooks from their printed counterparts based on the NSR designation.  Downloadable audiobooks usually show up as electronic resources and may have a different symbol. 

Library patrons looking for audiobooks usually are not format-agnostic.  Those patrons who are interested in and comfortable with downloadable audiobooks will look for that format specifically and are accustomed to seeing them listed as “electronic resources.”  To the lay person, “electronic resource” most commonly means ONLINE resource.   If a patron isn’t interested in downloads, very often he or she will simply look for the symbol associated with the NSR designation. 

Take a look at this screenshot from the OPAC of the Rocky River, Ohio Public Library (they use Sirsi/Dynix’s iBistro software).  The first title in the list is actually on Playaway, but looking at it in this view, all that’s indicated is that it’s an electronic resource.  If you were a patron trying to get a copy of The Age of Innocence on a physical format, would this tell you enough to make you put a hold on this item, or would you assume it was a downloadable title and keep looking?

Playaway’s MARC records are produced to the highest standard, and naturally enough, we chose to follow the OLAC guidelines in full.  Under the guidelines, libraries can of course make whatever local changes to the record they like.  So for those libraries that prefer to use NSR, Playaway can make that change to the records we provide.  

But we’re getting so many questions and complaints on this issue, that I’m beginning to think that the DEFAULT for our records should be NSR.  

The bigger problem, however, is that currently only a minority of Playaway library customers get their records straight from us.   Far more get them from OCLC.   These are the same records (created by Playaway and uploaded to OCLC as a “contributing vendor”), but as a matter of policy, OCLC expects us to fully follow the OLAC guidelines. 

Yes, local libraries can make whatever changes they see fit, but not every library has the staff resources or expertise to make this happen.   And yes there are other entries in other fields in the record  that ndicate that a Playaway title is a non-musical recording, but again libraries often lack the expertise necessary to make custom changes to the way MARC fields are mapped to their OPAC listings.

As I see it, either OLAC needs to change the guidelines or OCLC needs to be convinced to accept our records with the NSR designation.  

At ALA Midwinter, I met with task group chair Heidi Frank of NYU and task group member Bill Anderson of the University of Connecticut at Storrs.  From talking with them, it’s clear to me that everyone on the group had the best of intentions, but in retrospect they may have made the wrong decision.  Like all good catalogers, the members of the Task Group aren’t interested in imposing rules that don’t work.  Heidi and Bill heard me out most respectfully, and they even agreed to re-open the issue with CAPC.  This could however be a lengthy process.   In the meantime Playaway will offer our library customers the ability to customize GMD to meet their needs (at no cost), and I will be investigating the possibility of submitting records to OCLC with the NSR rather than the “electronic resource” designation.

I’m very interested in hearing your thoughts on this.  Please feel free to post a comment here. 

Comments

[Clare Murphy]

I am just starting out in the cataloging aspects, having been in the branches [public] for last decade(+). So my perspective is basically from the user point of view. (Plus as someone who is trying to make sense of the backend business now!)

I agree that users would much rather see 'sound recording'.

What many are interested in knowing FIRST is simply: Is it TEXT or SOUND or VISUAL?

With so many formats out there now, in EACH of these categories, it would be considerate if the basic end-experience is part of the first easily human-scanned data we present to them.

Once they understand that aspect, they can winnow through the specific methods/formats to obtain it.

Also, 'Electronic resource' is now simply too generic to be of much use to anyone.

If however, this $h field could be used for truly descriptive information, THAT would be really user-freindly! Such as:

Electronic downloadable sound recording
Electronic streamed sound recording
Electronic portable device sound recording
Electronic downloadable videorecording
Electronic streamed videorecording
Electronic downloadable text
Electronic online resource

Or loose the "electronic" word entirely and leave the rest...
You get my drift!

Thanks for listening!

[Adam Schiff]

I just wanted to point out that "non-musical sound recording" is NOT a valid GMD. The only valid GMD (used in subfield $h in field 245) for any type of sound recording is "[sound recording]". Only in the Leader byte 6 (called "Type" in OCLC templates) are there separate codes, i and j, that are used to distinguish nonmusical and musical sound recordings. It would be completely incorrect to use "[non-musical sound recording]" in subfield $h of field 245.