CHAPTER SIX
0 INTRODUCTION
As indicated in chapters 1 and 2, it is often claimed that current cataloguing codes are based on concepts and principles from the pre-machine period and that they do not serve us well in giving guidance in the construction of electronic catalogues. Thus, in organising bibliographic information for an electronic environment, it is essential to examine the validity and adequacy of the principles on which current cataloguing codes are based. By assessing the extent to which cataloguing principles accord with the capabilities of the online environment, this chapter will answer some of the questions that have been highlighted in the literature of the last two decades on the relevance of current cataloguing principles (mainly the Paris Principles) to the online environment. To many writers, for example, Martin (1996b: 157) the online catalogue has meant a re-examination of the principles and practice of cataloguing. Carpenter and Svenonius (1985: 177) raise the issue that:
At the time the Paris Principles were composed, there was some awareness that computers might change cataloging; the direction of this change could not then be imagined. It remains to be seen whether this change will require the composition of a new set of principles, this time without ambiguity or compromise.
Another aim of this chapter is to establish whether cataloguing principles for the online environment should encompass a broader range of information sources, i.e., different bibliographic databases such as library catalogues, databases constructed by publishers, booksellers, library suppliers and A&I services. Boll (1990: 10) asks: whether there is now a need to include rules for A&I services, which constitute a major component of the online environment.
In general, the aim is to investigate whether the conceptual foundations developed over the last two centuries for the creation of bibliographic records and the construction of catalogues are still valid in the new environment. A similar question is posed by Svenonius (1989: 99) who questions whether changes in technology call for changes in the conceptual foundations of cataloguing.
This chapter is in two parts. In Part one some of the basic cataloguing principles, which have been highlighted in the literature as those most likely to be influenced by the new technology, will be re-examined in the light of both the present and the potential characteristics and capabilities of the online environment. Part two will deal with a comparison of A&I conventions with library cataloguing principles and identify in what areas the same principles can be applied by both communities.
In terms of descriptive cataloguing, as defined briefly at the beginning of Chapter 1, 'principles' are regarded as underlying concepts for the design and development of cataloguing rules and the construction of library catalogues. Principles can also be seen as general rules setting the pattern for more specific rules. Cataloguing principles do not necessarily mean that we must have a single standard for descriptive cataloguing, or that all cataloguing codes must be the same. Cataloguing principles mean that we can have different, but compatible standards within the same framework (Hagler, 1989: 199). The Paris Conference, as indicated in Chapter 2, was an international attempt to make national codes compatible.
The Paris Principles (see Appendix 1: Statement of Principles), which are the basis for discussion in this chapter, are, in fact, an expansion of a few basic concepts developed over the last two centuries. These concepts, which are repeated in various sections of the Statement of Principles (ICCP, 1963) are: 1) the functions of the catalogue, 2) the concept of multiple entries, 3) the concept of uniformity in the choice and form of headings and entry words, 4) the concept of functionality of entries and catalogues, and 5) the concept of authorship, personal and corporate. However, this chapter deals only with some of the principles that might be influenced by the new environment and that have been the subject of arguments among cataloguers for a long time, namely:
--The objectives and functions of the catalogue which influence all other principles,
--The structure of the catalogue and the kinds of entries and indexes, i.e., main entries, added entries and references,
--Uniform headings for works (i.e., uniform titles) and uniform headings for authors, and
-- The form of personal headings and corporate headings.
The concept of main entry will be dealt with in detail, because it has been considered important in the literature on the impact of computerised catalogues on cataloguing principles.
There are other pre-existing principles, unstated or overlooked, in the Paris Principles, such as the general assumption that catalogued items are almost always stand-alone publications rather than 'dependent works'. This issue, and other related questions, such as the 'basic unit of description' and the 'edition' issue, will be discussed in the next chapter in relation to their treatment in the online environment, particularly in shared cataloguing systems.
In the extrapolation of cataloguing principles, it is necessary to be aware of the context within which they were originally meant to operate. The Paris Principles have been indirectly influenced by both the characteristics and the limitations of the manual catalogue. They were principles for a catalogue which had limited capabilities in providing access to bibliographic information. As pointed out in section 2.5 of Chapter 2, those who contributed to the formulation and compilation of earlier cataloguing principles implicitly assumed that the physical form of the catalogue would be the card or printed book catalogue, either as individual catalogues or national bibliographies. On the whole, the Paris Principles were formulated at a time when there was little perception of approaches other than the traditional ones of author, title and subject.
Nearly thirty five years have passed since the Paris Conference and cataloguers have witnessed profound changes in many aspects of bibliographic control in general, and in descriptive cataloguing in particular, during this period of time. There has also been a considerable increase in unconventional forms of publications as well as various types of information sources and a considerable growth in different presentations of documents which demand increasing detail to retain precision in identification. Martin (1996b) reviews some of the major issues which influence bibliographic control and access in the new environment.
The cataloguing world has also faced major challenges such as the increasing costs of cataloguing and the need for simplified cataloguing or minimal level cataloguing (MLC), the question of duplicate records in cooperative cataloguing systems and the potential danger that cataloguing principles and concepts might be de-emphasised by those coming from the new technology environment.
The cataloguing community is now working in an environment totally different from that of the early 1960s. Given the influence of all these changes and developments in the world of cataloguing, a fundamental re-examination of cataloguing principles seems very necessary.
While current cataloguing principles deal with basic questions concerning the organisation of author/title catalogues, online catalogues have revolutionised access to bibliographic information beyond that approach. An important change in relation to providing access to bibliographic information in the online environment is that access is no longer controlled by cataloguing principles and rules to the same extent as previously but, to some extent, is now governed by various search/retrieval capabilities that were not available in the manual catalogue. For example, access through keyword searching, truncation, Boolean searching, hypertext searching and, most importantly, access to the full text of items, lie outside of cataloguing rules. This is one of the most fundamental differences between an online system and a manual system that should be taken into consideration when re-examining cataloguing principles. Furthermore, while the boundary between description and access has faded in the online environment (see Chapter 3, section 2.1.1), cataloguing principles have traditionally placed little emphasis on description.
In the following sections some of the principles mentioned in section 0.2 will be analysed with regard to the present and potential influences which the various capabilities of the new technologies might have upon them.
In our re-examination of cataloguing principles, major consideration should be given to the objectives and functions of the catalogue. Most cataloguing principles, such as the basis for description, the structure of the catalogue and the choice and form of access points are, to a great extent, influenced by the objectives and functions of the catalogue.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the present cataloguing objectives, which were proposed by Lubetzky to the Paris Conference, have their origin in the work of Panizzi and Cutter dating from the nineteenth century. As discussed in Section 2.5 in Chapter 2, the traditional approach in the Paris Principles toward the functions of the catalogue has not been able to solve the controversies between the 'finding function' and the 'collocating function' of the catalogue. It is often stated that the first and second objectives are inherently in conflict, and to consider one as primary means to sacrifice the other. While the first function (i.e., Statement 2.1) puts emphasis on the finding of specific items within a library collection, the second function (i.e., Statement 2.2) focuses on collocation of the works of a particular author and the editions and manifestations of a particular work. These two different approaches influence the choice and form of main and added entries, references and the linking devices to connect related entities. For example, in the finding function approach the focus of description and the basis for cataloguing data is the physical item in hand. Thus the main entry and added entries are provided according to the information on the title page because it is more familiar to readers. In this context, the relationship of the item to other works and its place in the bibliographic hierarchy is not identified and recorded. Wilson (1989) presents a well account of the conflict between the two objectives and their implications for the functions of the catalogue.
It is further stated that these objectives are not fully achieved in the manual environment because of its limitations in finding the actual location of items and the huge cost of making analytics and assembling all the works of a given author, i.e., the collocating function (Wilson, 1983, 1989).
A general question raised in the literature is whether the objectives and functions of the catalogue as set forth in the Paris Principles are still valid in the online environment. Another question which has to be addressed in this regard is: whether the catalogue in the online network environment should still maintain the same functions formulated for a pre-machine environment or should widen its scope to include new functions? While it is claimed by some writers that the current objectives and functions of the catalogue continue to be valid in the new environment and even that the new technology may help fulfil them more comprehensively and accurately (Kilgour, 1979: 39; Malinconico, 1980: 26; Schmierer, 1989: 111; Brunt, 1992: 23), others have challenged the validity and adequacy of the traditional objectives of the catalogue in the new environment. Ayres (1990: 246) states that the scope of the objectives must be expanded to include the impact that online catalogues have on the content of the catalogue. Buckland (1994: p. A) discusses the need to change our basic assumptions about the catalogue's purpose in order to design the catalogue of the future. He claims that we should pay more attention to bibliographic access and selection and should design the catalogue as a selecting aid. Heaney (1995: 135) notes that library catalogues function not solely as descriptive lists of books but as elements of library management systems and as sophisticated information tools.
In addition to the finding and collocating functions, which are valid in any environment, the online catalogue helps to better identify and characterise entities in terms of their nature, scope and orientation through different data fields such as intellectual level, document type, genre, language code, geographic area code and additional notes. Similarly, a fuller description of the item helps the online catalogue to be used as a means for different users to choose one item over similar items. The locating of items is another function of the catalogue and, in this respect, online catalogues are far more capable of showing the location and status of the item(s) being sought.
In the following section, the functions of the catalogue will be analysed with regard to the impact of some of the major characteristics of the online environment. These are: 1) the integration of library operations, 2) developments in networking and in global access to catalogues, 3) access to other types of bibliographic databases, and 4) online search/retrieval/display capabilities.
The integrated online library system has made it possible for different library modules to use the same bibliographic records within the same database management system. Acquisitions librarians, cataloguers, circulation librarians, serial librarians and reference librarians all have access to the same database and use it for different purposes. In an integrated system, the end user may have access to parts of acquisition status, circulations and holdings information (see section 2.2.2 in Chapter 3). It is therefore necessary for the online catalogue to fulfil the various bibliographic needs of different operations, from housekeeping functions to reference services. In this context, not only should the catalogue function as a finding tool as well as a collocating tool but it should also help in the choice between one work and others.
The combination of approaches to an integrated catalogue not only makes it necessary to expand the current objectives but also to put more emphasis on principles for the choice and form of access points as well as for description, i.e., data elements beyond author/title information. For example, a reference librarian may need to find a specific item and at the same time identify different editions and manifestations related to that item to provide more help to the user.
The fact that the resources and bibliographic information of hundreds of libraries participating in national and international networks are now accessible to any remote user calls for a reconsideration of the functions and objectives of the catalogue. The concept of 'catalogues on demand' extends the functions of the catalogue beyond providing access to a library's own collections. With international access to individual catalogues, the question arises as to whether a catalogue should serve in the first place its local users, that is, to identify the holdings of a particular library, or to enable any user to access the collections of other libraries available through the network. Buckland (1994: p. B) asks: "What difference does it make that the catalog now is concerned with the collectivity of collections rather than the local holdings of the individual library?" While catalogues should serve their local patrons well, they should also be useful to remote users. In such an environment, consideration should always be given to the fact that the item in hand for cataloguing may be a manifestation of another work known under a different title being held in another collection.
With respect to the network environment, there is some support for the precedence of the collocating function of the catalogue over its finding function. In a conceptual approach to a catalogue's functions as presented by Lubetzky to the Paris Principles, Wilson (1989) proposes that, with regard to the availability of different catalogues in an online network and with respect to the significance of 'work' over 'publication', priority should be given to the collocating objective. He proposes a redefinition of 'work' to be taken as the basic unit of cataloguing. Dempsey (1990: 64) points out that a lack of sufficient attention to the collocating objective of the catalogue has resulted in two problems in large shared databases: difficulty in authority control and an increase in duplicate records. Ayres (1990) supports a similar concept. In general, as will be discussed in detail in Section 1 of Chapter 7, in a network, online environment and with regard to the needs of different users, we cannot give precedence to any function. Rather, all functions of the catalogue should equally be taken into consideration.
On the other hand, while in a large shared database the potential number of editions and manifestations of a work increases, it is more likely that access to a very specific bibliographic manifestation of a work, for example, a particular version, would be a common need for some users. The result of a study of MELVYL at the University of California using transaction logs of remote users showed that known item searches constituted 40% of searches (Milsap and Ferl, 1993: 335). It is evident that in a shared system or network of catalogues there will be a good chance for the user to select those that suit his/her needs best among different representations of a work. Copy cataloguing through bibliographic utilities, which is usually a known-item search, is another example of such a user approach.
With the availability of catalogues to different remote users, it is hard to give absolute priority to either of the two traditional functions of the catalogue. A catalogue accessible to all types of users through a network will be expected to satisfy, as far as possible, different needs.
With respect to the accessibility of different types of online and/or on-disk bibliographic databases (e.g., library catalogues, book trade bibliographic databases, national bibliographies and A&I databases) to various users, a combination of approaches in terms of the functions of the catalogue should be considered.
With access to book trade databases, the catalogue goes beyond providing holdings information and becomes a gateway to explore what is newly published, what is to be published and what is in print. In such an environment, emphasis is also put on other functions such as the crucial choice of one item over another. From a different point of view, the functions of the bibliographic database in the library world and book trade world are similar in many respects, such as the finding function (principles 2.1 (a), (b) and (c) in the Paris Principles), the selecting function and housekeeping function. Even the bringing together of works by a particular author (Principle 2.2 (a)) and also collocation of series, are functions wanted by the two communities. A major difference is in the collocation of different editions and manifestations of a work, which libraries appear to consider important enough to control by rules of entry.
All a catalogue's functions can be achieved more comprehensively through the search/retrieval/display capabilities of the online catalogue. An interesting aspect of the online catalogue which is duplicated from A&I services is the ability of the searcher to choose and/or combine a number of different searching options. For example, keyword searching on place of publication, name of the publisher, date of publication, series information and ISBN or ISSN not only facilitates the finding function but it can also help in the choice of one item over another. Boolean searching can facilitate both the finding function (e.g., ANDing the author's name with date of publication) and the collocating function (e.g., ANDing the author heading with the uniform title to assemble different editions of a work). Hypertext searching on any term or a combination of terms can extend a known-item search to other items which may be unknown to the searcher but may have some kind of relationship with the item first found.
There is an important difference between the manual environment and the online environment in terms of search/retrieval/display capabilities of the catalogue and their influence on the two objectives. Whilst collocation in the manual catalogue is achieved through the physical pre-arrangement of records of related editions and manifestations of a work, in the online environment it can be achieved through the pre-coding and display of search results.
With many more data elements in MARC records, additional indexes and extensive search and retrieval capabilities, the online catalogue can be used as a selecting aid to choose specific items. This function, i.e., the choosing function, which is of interest to different users such as acquisitions and reference librarians as well as the book trade, can be carried out more effectively. For example, combining key data elements, such as author or title with date of publication, country of publication, name of publisher and language of the item is a useful way to choose appropriate items.
1.1.5 Conclusion
The catalogue in the global online environment is supposed to satisfy all possible approaches. From the preceding paragraphs, it can be concluded that the functions of the online catalogue go beyond those laid down in the Paris Principles. The online catalogue with its extensive capabilities can widen the scope and content of the functions and fulfil new functions. It is therefore necessary that cataloguing principles for the online environment should cover all these different functions equally and should also take into consideration the influence of each function on other principles.
The structure of the catalogue has an important role in the fulfilment of its functions. Sections 3 (Structure of the Catalogue), 4 (Kinds of Entry), 5 (Use of Multiple Entries), 6 (Function of Different Kinds of Entry) and subsections 8.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.5, 9.6 and also sections 10 and 11 of the Statement of Principles (see Appendix 1) relate to the structure of the catalogue. The principles underlying the structure of the catalogue and choice of entries in the Paris Principles include statements concerning the determination and construction of necessary entries for a linear, alphabetical catalogue. Such a linear catalogue consists of main entries, added entries and references.
Online catalogues, on the other hand, go far beyond the linear author/title catalogue; they permit dynamic linking, merging and rearrangement of files. The structure of an online catalogue usually consists of bibliographic, authority and holdings records linked to one another, each of which is arranged in a given order. Multiple access points and related index files in an online system are not limited to traditional author/title headings. Since it is possible to specify more data elements in a record as access points, the structure of online catalogues may include other index files such as keywords, author/any keyword from title, standard numbers, language of the item, country of publication, date of publication, type of material, genre and readership level.
Cataloguing principles should take into consideration the complex structure of the online catalogue and provide principles for the construction of different files (e.g., bibliographic, authority and holdings) and also for the indexing of different fields and sub-fields concerning access to required elements in the record. They should also suit the structure of the catalogue including different indexes for searching and browsing. A possible approach would be to provide principles for the construction of browsable indexes which can help the searcher to get a clear idea of what sort of indexes are available for searching and retrieval. It is also useful to provide name authority files for browsing, like those offered by SIRSI and PALS systems and a uniform-title authority file for making the catalogue more effective in its collocating function. A possible development in the structure of the catalogue is through the concept of 'super records' (see section 2 in Chapter 7).
As a typical example of the impact of the online environment on cataloguing principles, it has been claimed that the concept of main entry has lost its value. In the conclusion 4.1 of Chapter 2 it was indicated that with the advent of computerised catalogues the value of the main entry concept, which developed in the context of book and card catalogues, has been questioned, but no satisfactory and practical solution has emerged as to how its functions can be otherwise fulfilled. Svenonius (1989: 61) asks:
If the main entry were to be abandoned, what would replace its role in the construction of uniform headings? what would take its place in the structuring displays in online catalogs? how would abandoning the main entry affect single-entry and minimal-level catalogs?
A review of the related literature of the last two decades shows a developing discussion in favour of abandoning the main entry concept in the online environment. Although before the advent of automated catalogues there were some proposals for the no-main-entry concept such as 'Description Independent System (DIS)' (Mori, 1955, cited in Takawashi, 1989: 66; Mori, 1965), 'alternative entry' (Jeffreys, 1967), and 'title main entry' (Hicks and Tillin, 1970; Hamdy, 1973), developments in online catalogues of access to bibliographic information have given the issue a new dimension and the number of those who advocate the abandonment of the main entry concept has increased. To many writers (for example, Gorman, 1975, 1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1992; Kilgour, 1979; Ayres, 1978, 1981, 1990; Shoham and Lazinger, 1991; Jeffreys, 1993; Winke, 1993), the concept arose out of pre-machine systems and is said to be irrelevant in a developed online catalogue where the technology permits many more access points of equal value in the retrieving of bibliographic information. It is often also claimed that the process of determining main entries is one of the most complex, costly and time consuming processes in descriptive cataloguing (Mori, 1965; Hamdy, 1973; Gorman, 1989; Takawashi, 1989; Jeffreys, 1993; Winke, 1993).
In contrast to those supporting the simple abandonment of the main entry principle, others argue for its continued use in computerised catalogues (Scott, 1976; Malinconico, 1977, 1980; Aroksaar, 1986; Carpenter, 1989, 1992b; Brooks and Bierbaum, 1987; Bierbaum, 1994; Martin, 1996a; Heaney, 1995). In a survey of the attitudes of cataloguers and cataloguing educators, Musavi (1986: 143) found that more than half of the respondents disagreed with the abandonment of the main entry concept even in the online catalogue. The majority of respondents believed that online catalogues will not devalue the concept of main entry. Baughman and Svenonius (1984) assessed the implication of the possible abandonment of main entry in AACR2 and found that a number of problematic rules would result. Exploring the definitions and functions of main entry, Carpenter (1989, 1992b) stated that some of the functions of main entry, particularly its collocating function, are still valid in the online environment.
The following section is an analysis of the main entry concept in terms of its functions in an online environment. The focus of this section is only on main entries for personal names.
Discussions of the main entry concept have been mostly concerned with the objectives and functions of the catalogue rather than merely its definitions.' According to Verona (1963: 146) any consideration about the functions of the main entry has to be based on an evaluation of the general objectives and functions of the alphabetical catalogue. A similar idea comes from Carpenter (1989: 84) who points out that: "If main entry is to have any function, it must be in the context of fulfilling an objective of a catalog."
A major justification for the concept often lies in its collocating function, in bringing together both different editions of a work and the works of an author. Carpenter (1989: 84-85) states that other functions, i.e., 1) naming a work, 2) providing credit to the principal author, 3) providing the only full entry, and 4) being the entry to which all others refer, are of historical interest. Looking from a database perspective, Brooks and Bierbaum (1987: 338) consider the uniform main entry as an essential device to link all the occurrences of a bibliographic mutation. Tillett (1995) emphasises the role of main entry in specifying the nature of the relationship between a work and the person associated with it. Heaney (1995: 137) notes that the issue of the main entry is more complicated than its being only considered as a primary heading; it involves not the idea of "main" entry but also the adequate identification, within the record, of related works.
As a collocating device, the concept of main entry has been retained not only in multiple-entry card catalogues but also with the same justification in automated catalogues. In terms of collocation, main entry has two specific functions: 1) Assembling and displaying works by an author, and 2) Assembling and displaying different editions of a work.
Assembling and displaying works by an author
Assembling of the works of an author, which is presented as objective 2.2(a) in the Paris Principles, can be achieved through a uniform heading for the author, whether recorded as the main entry heading or as an added entry. This function is thus not exclusively achieved by the main entry heading. Furthermore, the main entry heading alone cannot assemble all the works by an author. In many cases where an author is a joint author, editor, compiler or author of one part, his/her name may be presented as an added entry heading.
Assembling and displaying different editions of a work
While the most important justification for the main entry is in its role of assembling and displaying, in a meaningful and logical order, the various editions of a work, it has been a complex and debatable concept in the history of descriptive cataloguing. Although this function is attributed to main entry, it cannot be fully achieved through the main entry heading alone. In assembling the different editions of a work, the main entry heading is dependent upon a second collocating device: the uniform title. Without the inclusion of a uniform title following the main entry heading in the record, the assembling function of the main entry is only partially achieved: it would be limited only to those works whose editions and manifestations have identical titles proper. Thus, neither of the two functions perceived for main entry in the Paris Principles can be fully achieved through the main entry heading alone. As will be discussed further in this section, a combination of the author's uniform heading and the uniform title that is considered as a 'unifying mode of identifying' different editions of a work (Martin, 1996b) will fulfil the collocating function in a more comprehensive way.
Keyword searching. In an online database with keyword access, it is possible to retrieve a record through keywords, whether in main entries, added entries or any other significant word indexed from the text of the record. A major characteristic of keywords is that they are not controlled by cataloguing rules and they are not subject to authority control. Therefore, keyword searching on names will retrieve only those records that match the term(s) keyed in by the searcher. Keyword searching capability cannot replace the main entry in terms of its collocating function. It can, however, facilitate the collocating function: once access to one or more specific items has been provided through keywords, the searcher can extend the search by keying the exact form of the author heading or the uniform title found on the retrieved record(s) to search for related editions with the same terms only.
Boolean searching. Boolean search is another capability for bringing together different editions of a work. This can be done by keying in two or more data elements such as the author heading and the title proper or the uniform title, by using the 'AND' operator. Since the title proper of different editions of a work may vary, titles proper in conjunction with author heading cannot be a useful element for the collocating function. The 'author/title' search key, which many systems provide, is an implicit Boolean search which has the same limitation. Instead, a Boolean search on the author uniform heading and the uniform title, including relevant qualifiers, can achieve the collocating function more effectively. This approach is another justification for the main entry concept.
Index browsing. The browsing capability removes the burden of entering the exact search terms and enables the searcher to gain an overview of an index containing an alphabetical list of all headings. Browsing, for example, the author index will display together all the works by an author irrespective of his/her type of contribution (e.g., primary author, joint author, editor, compiler). Nevertheless, for the uniform citation and display of entries in the browsable author index we need to identify the primary author. To link works, however, the primary author's name should be in a uniform heading. This is again another justification for the concept of main entry in an online environment.
It can be seen that, even with browsing capability, a useful collocation of different editions of a work is not possible with the present structure of entries. Browsable indexes could help solve the collocation problem if the author and the title indexes are pre-coordinated for meaningful arrangement and display of related entities.
Online display and the concept of main entry. Since the display format in online catalogues is independent of the storage format, when a number of records are displayed (particularly in brief displays) in response to a query, the retrieved titles need to be displayed in conjunction with a second primary identifier such as the author heading. Otherwise, not only is the identification of the retrieved items not complete, but different works by an author are also not distinguished and assembled. This primary element is necessary in online displays of related works. Carpenter (1989: 81) states that the primary key provides a unique identification of the record. He also points out that: "Discussions about main entry have changed focus from records to useful displays" (Ibid: 90). Online displays, for instance, default listings in brief displays, require that, in addition to titles proper, another principal element must be displayed. The following example may help to make this idea clearer:
As the convention now exists in many OPACs, when there is an editor or a compiler for a work and the work goes under title main entry or a corporate heading and the editor or the compiler is given an added entry as opposed to main entry, his/her/its name would still need to be displayed in conjunction with the title proper in the brief display to uniquely identify the work and to differentiate between works with identical titles. From another perspective, that of the catalogue user who does not understand what main entry is, an editor or a compiler may seem to be the primary identifier or access point which should be displayed in conjunction with the title in brief displays and in single entry listings.
As a concept, the main entry relates rather to the nature of relationships between entities (authors to their works or works to their editions) than to the physical medium through which those entities are to be described. Many works, particularly in the fields of literature, law and music, require such a uniform construct for identification and collocation. Even if technology provides catalogues with sophisticated devices to link two or more related entities to one another, it would not help the user if catalogues do not show him/her the nature of these relationships. Without such a concept the catalogue, whether manual or computerised, would lose its integrity and usefulness.
From the preceding discussions concerning the possible influence of different online search/retrieval/display capabilities, it can be concluded that online catalogues still need a construct to carry out some specific functions which cannot be fulfilled thoroughly through other devices. Of great concern is the fact that the main entry concept is not meant to be a single function element but rather a concept that is essential to fulfil some basic functions. Thus it is in need of a re-definition that will focus on its multiple functions:
Main entry is a uniform construct for the naming and identifying of works and also for the useful collocation and arrangement/display of the different editions and manifestations of a work.
In addition to the identification of the primary author, the concept of uniform citation, as defined above, is dependent on two key identifying elements: uniform titles for works and uniform headings for authors.
As discussed in Chapter 4, a work can potentially be produced in different editions, different versions, in various languages and/or in a variety of physical formats. This concept is intrinsic to the bibliographic universe and its control is an essential principle for catalogues. In this context, the name of the work, i.e., the 'uniform title', has been devised in descriptive cataloguing to control the conditions of a work. For this reason, the use of uniform titles has greatly increased and their application has gone beyond anonymous classics, sacred Scriptures and works of music. However, the Paris Principles are less concerned with the concept of uniform titles: principles 7.1, 11.3 and 11.4 only deal vaguely with the choice and form of uniform titles (see appendix 1). In the following sections, the rationale and the functions of uniform titles will be examined in the context of the online environment.
The functions of uniform titles are: 1) to standardise the original title of a work, 2) to standardise the form of the main entry heading for anonymous works, 3) to group together all editions and manifestations of a work under one particular title, and 4) to identify the relationships between an edition and a work. The rationale for the principle of uniform titles, however, rests mainly with two functions: 1) the uniform identification of a work and 2) the assembling of entities derived from or related to the same work. As indicated in chapters 4 and 5, uniform titles support at least four types of bibliographic relationship: equivalence, derivative, whole-part, and sequential relationships.
No research has yet attempted to study the influence of different search/retrieval/display capabilities of online catalogues on the principle of uniform title. Tillett (1992a: 111) states that some Western cataloguing practices that arise from the physical limitations of manual catalogues do not make sense in the online environment and should be rethought. Of such practices, the uniform title is one of the most important. Tillett (Ibid) states that we should simplify the entire issue of uniform titles to make it relevant to the online catalogue in a network environment. Vellucci (1990: 59) emphasises the need to explore more fully the potential of uniform titles as linking devices and as foundation points for online catalogues. She states:
As we move into the online environment, the uniform title will continue to evolve. The terminology might change again, and new functions might be identified. But the important role of the uniform title in identifying works and serving as a linking device for bibliographic relationships will no doubt be a primary focus for uniform titles of the future (Ibid, 56).
Boll (1990: 15) points out that, in an online catalogue, both the primary heading and the uniform title "are needed to recall, as a group, manifestations of the same work that have different titles proper".
As in the case of the main entry concept, the examination of individual search/retrieval/display capabilities in online catalogues reveals that not only do those capabilities not diminish the need for the concept of uniform titles but they also emphasise their role in the effective collocation and display of related works and items. Without the uniform title associated with the main entry heading, one can see that different editions of the same work are scattered among the retrieved records for other works by the same author. For example, translations or selections of a work, while being scattered among different works by the same author, are treated as if they are new works by the same author. This problem is highlighted in online catalogues: they may need a number of screens to list all retrieved items and the searcher may have to spend considerable time to find his/her needed item.
With regard to the catalogue's collocating function, uniform titles will play a more important role in the online catalogue. In an online environment, the linking of different editions and manifestations of a work is essential for increasing recall in response to user queries and could be a critical part of the file structure for new system designs (Vellucci, 1990: 45). While uniform titles alone increase the search results (i.e., recall), the addition of other data elements, such as version, language, date and part of the work, to the uniform title will narrow down the search results and will increase precision. In their present state, formal or conventional titles, such as "Laws, etc." and "works", may not be useful in online retrieval unless in conjunction with, for example, a name or date. The search expression "Laws, etc. AND New South Wales" is useful in an online catalogue. In such systems some of the qualifiers can be specified by Boolean means or can be simplified into natural language terms, as in the concept of super records in Chapter 7.
While the occurrence of editions of the same work with different titles and different works with similar titles increases in large catalogues and union databases, the concept of uniform titles can help control this problem. In the context of searching a large bibliographic database, there should be a means for the user to realise that what has been retrieved in response to his/her query may be different editions of the same work.
For the same reasons that a concept equivalent to the main entry will be needed in an online catalogue, the concept of uniform titles will remain a valid principle in the new environment. Even with the different search/retrieval/display capabilities of the online catalogue, there is still a need for a standardised form of the title of a work serving to identify and collocate different editions and manifestations of a work. These capabilities can also help to simplify and make the application of the concept in online catalogues more understandable.
As indicated in earlier sections, another principle that is essential to the fulfilment of the main entry's functions is a uniform heading for persons. A rigid ideal in modern cataloguing codes and one of the first principles in the Anglo-American cataloguing tradition (see Chapter 2, section 3.6) has been to list all works by or about a given person under a uniform heading. In this context, uniform headings have been regarded as a necessary device for the integrity of the catalogue (Chan, 1983: 20).
While the need for uniformity of headings in an online environment and for links among variant forms of a name has been reaffirmed by a number of writers (for example, Taylor, 1984: 15 and 1989: 33; Takawashi, 1989: 69; Shoham and Lazinger, 1991: 62; Brooks and Bierbaum, 1987: 338; Bierbaum, 1994: 84), the necessity to enter an author's works under one uniform heading and the provision of references for other forms of a name for the same author has come into question in online catalogues. In terms of the implication of adhering to the principle of uniform headings in an online environment Chan (1983: 29) asks:
...does the principle of uniform heading have the same meaning or import in the automated catalog as in the card catalog? ... What are the implications of the principle of uniform heading in the maintenance of the name authority file? To what extent does the designation of a focal point (i.e., the uniform heading) facilitate and economize such operations?
However, as discussed in relation to the collocating function of the catalogue, the bringing together and display of an author's works require that all records be presented under a uniform heading for the author. Divergence in the form of headings is not consistent with the requirements of the online environment. Normalisation of names is a principle which is also essential to database management systems.
However, a major problem in the online environment is that there are different bibliographic databases and a wide variety of users. A difficulty in searching different databases is that, while there is a uniform approach in library cataloguing in relation to uniform headings, other communities such as the book trade and A&I services are less concerned with this principle. In many bibliographic databases it is often the case that the same person has been entered under a variety of unlinked names leading to irretrievability of all the works by a particular author.
Keyword searching. Keyword searching facilitates the finding function of the catalogue through the form of an author's name that appears on the title page or in information sources, i.e., the form which is usually familiar to both the book world and the searcher. However, with keyword searching it is possible only to search names under the form in which they have been recorded in the bibliographic record. Keywords are not subject to authority control and therefore cannot always collocate all the works by or about an author in a catalogue, especially if the form of name differs. However, keyword searching facilitates the collocation of an author's works: once access is made to a record through any form of the name, it is possible to assemble works by or about a particular author through a further search on the uniform author heading.
Truncation. With right-hand truncation, the online catalogue is able to retrieve those names which begin with the characters defined by the searcher. In other words, names must be uniform, at least for the few beginning characters, to retrieve all the works by a given author. For example, truncation on a surname will retrieve works by those authors whose forenames or initials may differ from one another. Truncation, particularly automatic right-hand truncation, influences uniform headings in two ways: 1) it retrieves all the works by an author when only the surname is known to the searcher, 2) it increases the number of retrieved records, some of which may not be relevant to the needs of the searcher. In effect, not only does truncation not devalue the principle of uniform headings, but it also emphasises it, in that the more complete the uniform heading is, the more chance there will be for retrieval precision.
Index browsing. In systems allowing the browsing of name indexes, it is necessary, in general, that works by an author be assembled under a single form of name. The browsing capability thus reinforces the need for the principle of uniform headings. The value of uniform headings can also be seen in single-entry printouts and lists both in library cataloguing and in publishers' activities. The 'author index' volume in the Books In Print is a good example of a name browsable index.
Authority control systems. In an online catalogue utilising name authority files, access to the works of a given author by any variant forms of the name would be as effective as access by the uniform heading. The distinction between the established form of a name and any cross reference to it is invisible to the user. It has been said that in future catalogues a complete listing of an author's works under any form of the author's name is quite feasible (Carpenter, 1992a: 95).
Even in authority control systems there is still a need to establish one form of a person's name as the uniform heading and others as references. In fact, uniform headings are still considered to be an important principle in authority work (Taylor, 1984: 15). While name authority systems make it possible to achieve the finding function in a one-step search for any work by a given author, adherence to the principle of uniform heading is a means to maintain the one-to-many relationship (i.e., one name to many works) in bibliographic databases and, thus, to achieve the collocation of all works available by a given author in the catalogue.
Online displays and the principle of uniform headings. With regard to differences in the physical forms of the manual catalogue and the online catalogue, the very rigid ideal in the card catalogue of assembling in one place all the works a library has by a given author has shifted, in the online catalogue, to the ideal of the system's ability to retrieve all the works of an author through any searched form of his/her name and to display them together under one uniform heading for the author. Under whatever form of name the works by a given author have been searched, the default listing of those works requires that the name of the author needs to be displayed in a uniform manner.
Uniform headings are an essential principle in bibliographic control, especially in shared cataloguing environments and union catalogues, facilitating bibliographic cooperation between libraries (LeBlanc, 1993: 425). The communication of bibliographic records for cataloguing purposes, reference services and inter-library loan depends to a large extent on the uniformity of headings. In searching the different catalogues accessible in a network, the patron, the technical services librarian and the reference librarian usually look for the works of a given author under the same heading.
The ability to look for particular bibliographic information in different catalogues irrespective of their size, type and location requires an ever-increasing need for standard bibliographic records. Except for differences in user interfaces, a first requirement is to conform to the concept of uniform headings at the national level. National name authority files would be the most desirable answer to complications in the forms of authors' names and can provide consistent access to catalogues and other bibliographic lists. It is then possible to share bibliographic and authority records on the international level. Criticising the way that cataloguers prepare headings as if they are cataloguing for a single library, Wajenberg (1992: 106) states that:
The cataloging code for the third millennium should rise above the parochial emphasis on the local catalog. It should provide instructions for preparing headings for a national online authority file, and eventually for an international equivalent.
It can be said that although the very rigid ideal of uniform headings has undergone gradual modification, the principle is still valid and its maintenance can secure the integrity of catalogues particularly in shared cataloguing systems, union databases and network environments at the national level. Although name authority systems have made it possible to retrieve all the works of a given author through a one-step search in the catalogue, the necessity for collocation and particularly for display of an author's works together requires that one form of name be chosen as the established uniform heading.
In summary, while it seems that there may be no solution to the problem of the present conflict between different communities and within each community (due to important reasons to maintain differences across cultures), a possible solution is for all creators of bibliographic records to conform to national name authority files as a source of standardised name headings. This would bring more uniformity in the different environments and would make searching and retrieval of works by a given author easier in various files in the online environment.
In addition to the principle of uniform headings, which is essential to the integrity and the collocating function of the catalogue, the form of names in headings, as emphasised by IFLA/Unesco in 1961 (see Appendix 1, Statements 8 and 9), should be agreed upon both nationally and internationally. This principle needs to be examined with respect to searchers' expectations and also to the searching/retrieval/display capabilities of the online catalogue. In the following sections, the form of personal and corporate names will be discussed with respect to the possible influence of the online environment.
The form of a name is an important factor in searching and retrieval, particularly in online systems in which the searcher has to key in the name as the search string. In online catalogues with many search/retrieval capabilities it is important to see whether this principle needs a rather different approach. In a manual environment, a problem with the form of heading is that searches for works of authors must be in the exact form and order of their name headings. This requirement is no longer totally necessary since cross references in authority records and keyword searching allow for the searching of names in different ways. If the searcher is not sure as to which part of the name forms the surname for efficient searching, for example, Jean De La Fountaine, Walter De La Mare, Dante Alighieri, cross references or keyword access offers the possibility to search names in any order. Keyword searching capability also reduces the need for complete "surname+initials+(full forenames)+dates" headings as in AACR2R.
Truncation of headings, especially automatic right-hand truncation, can help retrieve works by authors whose complete heading (i.e., surname, forename or initials) is not known to the searcher. Variations in the fullness of forenames seem unimportant in systems with a truncation capability. Using 'Price, H H' and 'Grossman, Allen R.' as examples, Arlene Taylor (1984: 11, 13) proposes that an online catalog with keyword searching of headings and automatic right-hand truncation needs rather different rules for the formulation of headings and references.
Wajenberg (1992: 105) claims that, with keyword searching, the inversion of surnames and rules for the choice of entry-element in compound surnames and names with prefixes become unnecessary. Using the heading 'Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus' as an example, he points out that the most useful form of name is the fullest form. Kilgour (1995b), on the other hand, proposes that for a single-screen miniature catalogue author entries can be reduced to surnames alone. His survey of two online catalogues in the North Carolina State University, containing approximately 3.4 million entries, showed that surname searches produced mini catalogues of one screen 12.6% of the time, two screens 22.5%, and three screens 30.1%. He claims that his finding, that nearly two-fifths of the cataloguing of books in a large university library produces entries that will be displayed in mini catalogues of one screen, demands revision and simplification of cataloguing practices in large research libraries (Kilgour, 1995b: 705) For example, he proposes that with keyword search function no added author fields will be necessary for multiple surnames (Ibid: 706).
As will be noted later in this section, there are other factors, such as the need for default listings of the works of an author and the needs of the book world, citation traditions and international exchange of bibliographic data, which require the standard order of 'surname, forename' in full form for personal headings. There is at present no consensus on the form of headings among the different creators of bibliographic records. There are, however, to some extent similarities between library cataloguing and the book world: both tend to use the best known form of name with library cataloguing more inclined to use the complete form.
The issue of corporate headings was one of the problems on which there was no international consensus at the Paris Conference. Even today different national codes have different approaches toward the form of headings.
Searching, retrieval and display of corporate names in online systems are often frustrating to the user. Many of the problems concerning the searching of corporate bodies' publications relate to the form of headings for these bodies. Little has been written on the form of corporate headings in an online environment. Some of the implications of searching corporate names in online systems have been briefly addressed by Arlene Taylor (1984), Brunt (1992) and more fully by Greig (1995). The result of a study by Henty (1986), concerning unsuccessful keyword searching, indicates that the reasons for the users' search failures are, to some extent, due to the implications of variant forms of corporate names. Some of the problems concerning the searching, retrieval and display of corporate headings in online systems are:
1) It is particularly difficult to search under the exact form of corporate headings in online catalogues because the user has to key in the search string. How much of the heading should be keyed in by the searcher to initiate the search, since corporate names are usually long, often similar to one another and appear in different forms such as acronyms, initials and subordinations (e.g., World Health Organization, WHO or W.H.O.)?
2) In some cases, headings for subordinate bodies associated with the same parent body do not follow a uniform approach. While the 'World Health Organization' appears as the heading for this body, a number of subordinate bodies incorporating the acronym 'WHO' are treated as headings in the catalogue; for example, 'WHO Collaborating Centre on Environmental Pollution Control', 'WHO Commission on Health and Environment', 'WHO Expert Group on Pesticide Residues'. The same problem exists with the 'Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations' and some of its subordinate bodies beginning with 'FAO'.
3) Entering corporate bodies under the name of the higher body would often cause inconvenience for the searcher, especially in large catalogues and shared systems. The use of indirect corporate headings is not innate and could appear meaningless to catalogue users. They "can be considerably distorted because of re-arrangement of the elements of the name and, in many codes, by translating the name of the jurisdiction" (Greig, 1995: 387).
4) The addition of a geographic name to the heading for corporate bodies often does not make sense in the online environment. Exact searching and truncation on headings beginning with the name of the jurisdiction (geographic name) often result in too many hits. Headings like 'Australia. Australian Parliamentary Observer Group', 'Canada. Canadian High Commission' and 'Canada. Canadian Armed Forces' which are problematic for searching could be more straightforward if 'Australia' and 'Canada', were omitted from the heading.
5) Truncation on the name of the parent body will usually retrieve too many records that are not easy to distinguish from one another, especially in brief displays where, because of screen limitation, the name of the parent body alone may fill the allotted space.
6) Clustering of all the publications of different departments and divisions of a corporate body is not usually sought by searchers. Also, it does not make sense in brief displays where, because of screen limitation, only the first few elements of the heading are displayed thus obscuring the name of the actual issuing body. Consider, for example, how frustrating the retrieval of publications of different subordinates bodies of the United Nations would be in an online catalogue).
It can be concluded that direct headings, i.e., subordinate bodies under their own heading, would eliminate these problems provided that the heading for the subordinate body is self-sufficient. There are a number of factors that also justify this:
-- direct headings form a shorter string and are more suitable for online displays, especially for brief displays,
-- most searchers are usually looking for the publications of a given subordinate body and are not interested in the parent body,
-- automatic right-hand truncation on subordinate bodies is more relevant to direct headings than it is to indirect headings and would narrow the scope of search to the publications of the subordinate body only. A search for publications by WHO commissions, expert committees and working groups can be done through the names of those bodies or through truncation of 'WHO'.
-- alternative approaches could be provided by means of authority control. As with advanced name authority files linked to the bibliographic file it is possible to search names in different forms, considerations should also be given to any form which may be looked under by catalogue searchers.
In general, while a fuller form of personal names seems more useful in the online environment, corporate names need a simpler approach in that, for example, direct headings for subordinate bodies are more responsive to the search/retrieval/display capabilities of online catalogues. Nevertheless, the problems of corporate headings in online catalogues such as the form and structure (e.g., official name versus name most frequently used; most frequently used versus conventional or modified name; language; transliteration; punctuation and display problems) require further research.
Online and/or on-disk A & I databases are now a major component of the online environment. As indicated earlier, in the introduction to this chapter, one of the aims of this research is to acknowledge the impact of the merging, integrating and accessibility of different types of bibliographic files, particularly library catalogues and A&I databases, on cataloguing principles and to see in what areas and how far similar principles might be applicable to the practices of the two communities.
Library cataloguing has over a century's history of establishing standards for the exchange of information whereas, due to the production of abstracts and indexes by publishers rather than by libraries, there is less standardisation within A&I services. Many indexing rules in the first half of the twentieth century were practically identical with those used in the preparation of library catalogues such as Cutter's Rules for a Dictionary catalog and the ALA Cataloging rules for Author and Title Entries (Wheeler, 1957: 8, 50).
Because of the introduction of new technologies, library cataloguing and indexing services now have more impact on one another than before largely due to three major factors:
1) The extensive and powerful searching and retrieval capabilities that computer technology has introduced to library catalogues, such as keyword searching, truncation, Boolean searching and hypertext searching, were first introduced in A&I services. Consequently, the indexing of more data fields, which requires the addition of more data elements such as language, type of material and readership level, is another indication of the impact of A&I services on cataloguing practices.
2) The accessibility of different online library catalogues and A&I databases through a single terminal and the increasing ability of the searcher to go from one bibliographic database/file to another and to navigate the whole bibliographic apparatus.
3) The evolution of CD-ROM versions of many A&I databases which are now available to end users.
These factors have now become a cause for concern over the possible use of the same or compatible standards for the creation of bibliographic records. Because of technological advances in providing integrated access to different bibliographic files and databases, it is time to think as to whether bibliographical control of these different practices should be done based on a single standard. A first step in a study of the possible use of a single standard in both communities is to acknowledge the similarities and differences between library cataloguing and A&I practices. Library cataloguing has come to a set of principles which are internationally agreed upon and has provided bibliographic standards for description of and access to bibliographic items and for the communication of bibliographic data, whereas A&I services have not. There are differences within A&I services about their approaches to description and there are different standards. Some of the major areas of differences/similarities between the two communities that have to be considered are: 1) objectives and functions of the catalogue/database, 2) structure of the catalogue/database and of the bibliographic record, and 3) choice and form of access points. These are being discussed more fully in the following sections.
Differences in the approaches of library cataloguing and A&I services towards creating bibliographic records are a result of different objectives which each of the two communities identifies for its bibliographic database. The major object of looking for an article's bibliographical citation in A&I databases is different from that of looking for bibliographic information in a library catalogue. While library cataloguing is traditionally concerned with the finding, identifying, collocating and organising of bibliographic entities, A&I services deal rather with the subject content of bibliographic entities and, to some extent only, the finding of works by a particular author. In A&I databases, the assembling of all the works by a given author may be a common approach for some searchers, but there is usually no concept such as the assembling of all editions and manifestations of a work. Journal articles, patent documents, reports, dissertations and conference proceedings have fewer editions than books. Consequently, the concept of main entry, which is useful for bringing together different editions and manifestations of a work, has more justification in library catalogues (see section 1.3 in this chapter) than in A&I databases. A similar idea is present in the COSATI (the Committee on Scientific and Technical Information) standard with the policy of a main entry free environment: "The system works because only rarely are there technical reports that are about other technical reports and unrelated by contract number" (Carpenter, 1994: 110).
Because of the differences in their objectives and functions, library catalogues and A&I databases differ from one another in terms of the structure of the bibliographic record and the structure of the database. There is no concept such as multiple entries (main entries, added entries and references) in A&I databases. However, in terms of the structure of the record, there are similarities in some of the data fields which can potentially conform to the same standard: headings for persons and corporate bodies associated with an item, date of publication, title of analytic, title of monograph, title of collection or series, language of the item, ISBN/ISSN, conference identification information (name, location, date), abstract/summary, country of publication, target audience and subject headings. These data fields can be treated similarly by the two communities by using identical terms/phrases. The searcher can approach the catalogue or the database with the same search string.
This is one of the most important areas of possible reconciliation between cataloguing principles and indexing conventions. Because CD-ROM versions of A&I databases are becoming increasingly available to end users and have larger cumulations of citations in them, there is more need to reconcile variant names. Since there is usually no retrospective editing of headings when a CD-ROM is produced, such discrepancies are simply left alone. Many A&I databases also include citations of monographs, such as conference proceedings, festschriften and books reviewed, that are duplicated in library catalogues. This also indicates the need for more consistency in name headings between library cataloguing and A&I practices.
In terms of the treatment of names for inclusion in the record for later retrieval, A&I conventions differ markedly both within themselves and from cataloguing conventions. In respect of the choice of names to be entered in the bibliographic record, A&I conventions usually provide author indexing in depth (Svenonius, 1989: 19). They do not conform to principles such as main entry and the 'rule of three'. The names of persons associated with an item are entered as they appear on the item in hand. For example, the UNISIST Reference Manual (hereafter referred to as RM) prescribes that the names of all individual authors associated with a given item are to be entered in the record, unless there is a clear indication on the original that the chief responsibility for authorship lies with choosing only one or less than all of the persons cited, in which case only those indicated as chief contributors are to be entered (Dierickx and Hopkinson, 1986: 2.A12.1). There are other similarities or differences:
-- Since A&I databases are not searched through the exact titles of items, title is not as common an access point as in library catalogues. Instead, a title keyword index is provided for title as well as subject searching.
-- As a first principle in the indexing of names, both communities invert names of persons to secure alphabetic arrangement by family names.
-- A&I conventions regard the names of editors of collections as an essential element for the identification of monographs (RM: 2.A12.1) whereas cataloguing conventions put less emphasis on the role of such contributors, in that they no longer consider editors and compilers as main entries.
-- In terms of the names of persons associated with a monograph, A&I conventions regard the form derived from the item as essential and other forms as optional (other forms may include the 'established form', i.e., the form of name established by reference to an authority other than the item to which the bibliographic record refers, 'real name', 'pseudonym', 'former name', 'subsequent name', 'search name') (RM: 2.A12.3).
Since A&I services do not normally use name authority files and do not maintain references, many of them prefer to include other forms of the name with initials immediately after the complete form ( i.e., the content of fields for authors is repeatable):
Wendt, Richard P. Wendt, R. P.
Atkinson, H Craig Craig Atkinson, H
Library cataloguing, on the other hand, treats names with initials differently. For example, AACR2R has the following approach:
Wendt, R. P. (Richard P.)
Eliot, T. S. (Thomas Stearns)
One reason why many A&I services do not conform to the principle of uniform heading may be that they are usually discipline-oriented and, therefore, the chance of similarity between the forms of names within a given discipline is not great. There are usually not many identical names with identical forenames or initials within a given A&I database; for example, there were only two authors with the surname 'Buckland' in the LISA database and three in ERIC but none with identical forename or initial.
-- A&I conventions emphasise the addition to names of two other elements: 1) the 'role', i.e., the type of intellectual responsibility, such as 'author', 'editor', 'compiler', 'translator', etc., and 2) the person's affiliation. Cataloguing rules, on the other hand, treat the role of persons in the statement of responsibility area and discard affiliations.
-- With regard to corporate names, there are some similarities and differences between A&I conventions and cataloguing principles:
a) the full form of corporate names is entered by A&I services with the inclusion of an abbreviation or acronym of a corporate body as an optional element (RM: 2.A14.2). AACR2R (1988: rule 24.1A) prescribes a similar approach without the optional inclusion of an abbreviation or acronym.
b) if the official or formal name of an organisation is usually quoted in the form of an acronym (e.g., IBM, ASLIB), this may be entered as the full form (RM: 2.A18.2). AACR2R (1988: rule 24.1A) has the same approach.
c) the name of a corporate body should be entered in the language of the document, unless the name shown on the document is itself a translation, and the name in its original language is known, in which case the latter form should be entered if better known (RM: 2.A18.2). AACR2R (1988: rule 24.3A) prescribes that the official language of the body should be used.
d) where several levels of an organisation are cited, they should be given in descending order of scale from the larger unit to the smaller. In terms of entering at the intermediate levels, if their inclusion does not add significant information to the entry, they may be omitted provided always that the most specific unit is cited and that the entry provides an unambiguous identification of the organisation (RM: 2.A18.2). Similarly, AACR2R (1988: rules 24.13A and 24.14A) prescribes that a subordinate or related body should usually be entered as a subheading of the main body.
Although the application of a single standard to all kinds of bibliographic databases is neither applicable nor desirable, divergence in standards has significant implications for a common approach to bibliographic control in the online environment. If the different standards can be based on compatible principles for the creation, exchange and searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic records, user convenience should then be taken into account. Therefore, a major issue for the profession will be the creation of compatible principles for bibliographical control in a global online environment. In this context, consistency between index entries and catalog entries is an important issue as many indexing rules used headings identical to headings in library catalogues a few decades ago. In general, since the names of persons and corporate bodies are a common element for searching in different types of bibliographic files, library cataloguing and indexing services could now conform to the principle of uniform headings and use similar forms of names. They could use similar rules concerning, for example, pseudonyms, changed names, compound names, names with preposition and geographic names. It would be good if all communities involved in the creation and use of bibliographic records could at least benefit from uniform author headings through national name authorities.
Similarly, library cataloguing could learn from some of the A&I principles such as additional author access points, i.e., discarding the Paris Principles 10.21 and 11.12, i.e., the 'three names limitations'. The two communities could further designate the roles and responsibility functions of persons associated with the item, i.e., the relator concept, e.g., editor, compiler, illustrator, annotator, commentator, reviewer and translator. This would help different users to better understand the relationship between names cited and the item and would thus lead to better identification and retrieval of items.
The following conclusions are derived from the examination of a number of cataloguing principles carried out in this chapter, in the light of the various capabilities of the online environment.
-- Conceptually, the objectives and functions of the catalogue are independent of its physical form and arrangement. Technology can, however, influence the way in which these functions are carried out: the more developments there are in the technology of catalogue construction and in the online environment, the more possibilities there are to achieve those objectives and functions.
-- Due to the potential use of bibliographic records by a variety of users, the scope of catalogue functions should be expanded to encompass additional functions. The two basic functions (i.e., the finding function and the collocating function) remain valid in the online environment but the catalogue also can serve additional functions: to further identify entities, to choose one item over similar items, to locate items and copies of items and to maintain databases in terms of record updating.
--While the finding function is a general approach in almost all bibliographic databases, the collocating function is more important to library catalogues and, to some extent, to publishers' databases than to other communities such as A & I services. However, in the online environment, with a variety of users, all the functions of the catalogue need to be considered important. It is therefore necessary to elaborate on this issue and arrive at an international agreement, since the delineation of the objectives and functions of the catalogue influences other cataloguing principles.
-- Rather than being the locus of complete information for the bibliographic record or the primary access point, main entry is an important concept that maintains some basic functions of the catalogue, that of identifying and collocating, in a uniform way, different editions and manifestations of a work. In other words, if a major function of the catalogue is to identify and collocate works as well as their editions and manifestations, there is a need for a concept such as main entry. The lack of such a concept could result in failure to place a publication in the context of its bibliographic relationships. Unless we devise new mechanisms for the uniform identification and collocation of the different manifestations and editions of a work, it would be unwise to abandon the concept of main entry.
-- Nevertheless, in order to delineate the concept more clearly and to avoid confusion as to its functions, main entry is in need of re-definition. The new functional definition should address the validity of the concept in terms of its various functions, irrespective of the catalogue's physical environment. Main entry is particularly needed in the online environment for the useful retrieval, display and arrangement of search results.
-- Similarly to the concept of main entry, uniform titles are needed to perform some basic functions such as providing links between different editions and manifestations of a work and to distinguish among works with identical titles proper. Because of present problems in the online retrieval of the various editions and manifestations of works, a concept such as a standardised form of the title of a work can serve to identify and collocate them. However, uniform titles need to be simplified in order to avoid online retrieval problems.
-- It is difficult to fulfil the collocating function of the catalogue/database without maintaining the principle of uniform headings. Uniformity of headings for authors and titles is especially important in network environments, where different catalogues and other bibliographic databases are accessible to the user through the same terminal. The principle is also of particular significance in shared cataloguing systems and union databases. Library cataloguing, book trade bibliographic databases and A&I services should at least be consistent or compatible in certain areas such as uniform headings. In effect, standardisation or compatibility in the form of headings is an essential requirement for universal bibliographical control (UBC), particularly in the global online environment.
-- In terms of the form of personal and corporate name headings for effective searching, retrieval and display, online catalogues need a simpler approach. The form of headings needs to be reconsidered in terms of its suitability for different searching patterns (exact as well as keyword searching) and for display. For example, given adequate software, full forms of name should satisfy searchers seeking either that form, or only the surname plus initials. But searching under single letters, such as initials, is still a problem for many library systems. For subordinate corporate bodies direct headings are usually more responsive to online search/retrieval/displays.
-- As a consequence of the potential of the online system to incorporate more names as access points, the 'rule of three' is not sensible in the online environment. Removal of this outdated principle would add to the functionality of the catalogue, in that it would enhance access to and identification of works of all authors.
--Current cataloguing principles are not based on the overriding requirements of different users in a variety of environments. There are advantages if we can arrive at a body of principles which can serve to reconcile the bibliographical practices of publishers and booksellers with those of libraries, bibliographic utilities, national bibliographies and the archival community. It would also be advantageous if A&I services and library cataloguing practices could come closer in terms of providing consistent access to bibliographic information, particularly in terms of the form of name headings. Although the objectives and functions of book trade databases, A&I databases and library catalogues are different from one another, the entries created by each community need to be consistent or at least compatible for the purposes of record exchange and database searching. A possible solution is for each community to conform to national name authority files.
As indicated earlier in this chapter, in terms of some fundamental questions such as the 'basic unit of description', 'the edition issue' and the display of bibliographic data, current cataloguing principles are not adequately responsive to the requirements of the new online environment. In considering basic concepts for further investigation, attention should be paid to a possible resolution of such questions. The next chapter will propose solutions to these basic issues.
Back to: