CHAPTER SEVEN
0 INTRODUCTION
As indicated in preceding chapters, lack of clear and adequate cataloguing principles concerning the treatment of some basic issues in the online environment often results in retrieval and display problems. This chapter will identify further issues underlying the development of cataloguing principles for the online environment. It will also propose relevant approaches concerning some of the searching, retrieval and display problems that result from the treatment and/or inadequacy of current cataloguing principles in an online environment.
Three issues are discussed here as possible approaches toward the development of cataloguing principles for the online environment. These are: 1) the basis for description, 2) the concept of super records, and 3) the online display of bibliographic records.
While library catalogues remained isolated and served only their local users (i.e., were maintained at a local level), they could describe bibliographic entities on any basis they considered appropriate. As indicated in Chapter 2, the shift in different codes of descriptive cataloguing from 'work' to 'item' (and vice-versa) as the basis of description is, in fact, an indication of the relative importance of these different perspectives. On the other hand, where more than one catalogue is involved (e.g., in the case of shared cataloguing systems and union catalogues) and also where catalogues are increasingly becoming a part of the global online environment there must, as a first principle, be consensus regarding the basis for the description of bibliographic entities, that is, what entity should be regarded as the basis for bibliographic description in an online environment.
The basis for description needs to take into account, as far as is possible, the various functions of the catalogue discussed in section 1.1, especially the finding and collocating functions. It is has been said that known-item author and/or title searches comprise the majority of OPAC searches (Seal, Bryant and Hall, 1982: 19; Brooks and Bierbaum, 1987; Kalin, 1991b: 181; Hufford, 1991: 58; Peters, 1991: 180, 182), but even if the primary aim of a user is to find a known item, this cannot be generalised to all users and all environments. In some collections, especially those covering literature, music, history and law, it is necessary to display the various editions of a work together, in an explicit and helpful order, so as to facilitate the user's choice among them.
Therefore, any discussion about the basis for description should take the following issues into account: 1) Basic unit of description, 2) The edition question, 3) Chief and alternative sources of cataloguing data, and 4) Dependent works.
As discussed in detail in Section 2.5 in Chapter 2, to base the description of bibliographic entities either on the 'item' in hand or on the 'work' has long been a controversial issue in descriptive cataloguing. It was well illustrated at the Paris Conference by the conflict between Verona's 'bibliographic unit' and Lubetzky's 'literary unit' concept of description (Verona, 1963; Lubetzky, 1963; Jolley, 1963). In a global online environment, the issue now requires a new look. Hagler (1991: 42) points out that a delineation of whether the 'work' or the 'publication' should take precedence in bibliographic identification is an important issue for the catalogue.
In an online environment no absolute precedence should be given to any of the two approaches. The following factors indicate the significance of both 'works' and 'items' and justify the need for equal consideration of both approaches in the description of bibliographic entities:
a) Users' needs vary a great deal. While some users may find any edition of a work useful, others may require a specific edition with a particular feature. There are also users who look in the catalogue for a particular manifestation of a work or a work in a particular format.
b) Many users do not know that a work may have several different editions and/or manifestations; the catalogue may contain more than the user may be expecting and it is an objective of the catalogue to display other works or items related to the sought item.
c) Most functions of the catalogue (such as finding, identifying, choosing and locating), however, relate to entities lower than the 'work' in the bibliographic hierarchy. Since 'work' is an abstract entity, the description at its highest level does not provide physical access. Works are accessible after they have been represented by copies of editions and/or manifestations derived from those editions.
d) Based on the users' familiarity with or knowledge of books as known or seen by them, the item and the cataloguing data on the chief source of information (e.g., the title page) are more appropriate as the basic unit of description for most types of publication. However, the basis for the description of reproductions, e.g., equivalent and near equivalent entities, is a different case; reproductions, particularly in microform, can be described as notes on the records created for the original item.
e) Libraries are usually not interested in records describing different editions and manifestations when they do not have all of those editions and manifestations in their collections.
f) For acquisitions, current awareness services, circulation, placing reservations on books and ILL (interlibrary loan) and for the purpose of importing and exporting records (for example, for cataloguing) that usually deal with specific manifestations, the work cannot be a good means of bibliographic data exchange. For this reason, libraries and bibliographic utilities catalogue the item representing the edition rather than the work.
g) If bibliographic records are to function in a co-operative environment and if we are to have the same or compatible principles for publishers and booksellers, their needs should be taken into account. In trade lists attention is focussed on the physical item as the object for sale and the description of individual items is therefore more relevant to publishers and booksellers' needs. Similarly, for national bibliographies, which focus on newly published items, the description based on the item is considered more important.
Defining what makes an edition and the extent to which an edition is different from other editions of the same work is another aspect of the first principle involving the basis for description. The delineation of 'edition' has always been a challenging issue for cataloguers because the term is used with significantly different connotations. The issue has become more important in the online environment due to the following factors:
1) an increase in different editions/printings/reprintings of the same work over time, (for example, the problem of multiple versions, as will be discussed later in this chapter),
2) a proliferation of shared cataloguing systems, union catalogues and, consequently, the more chance for the same work to appear in different editions in a shared database.
The decision whether to create a new record for the edition at hand or describe it on the record created for another edition of the same work requires a consistent approach in the online environment. With regard to both copy cataloguing and original cataloguing, any change in the intellectual content and/or physical characteristics, such as change in the text, the date of publication, the name of the publisher and pagination, is important to cataloguers. Different postings by cataloguers to AUTOCAT (14-22 November 1995) concerning 'edition vs version', 'edition statements' and 'new record or not' indicate the range of such problems. AACR2R, LCRI and bibliographic utilities' rules concerning edition are different from each another (Hugh Taylor <ht@ula.cam.ac.uk>, in a posting to AUTOCAT, 22 November 1995).
In general, the term 'edition' may not convey the same meaning to librarians and to publishers. In terms of printed materials, the term 'edition' is used simply for distinguishing various sets of printings of the same work from each other. It refers to copies of a published work printed or produced from a single setting of type or from plates made therefrom. AACR2R (1988: 617), O'Neill and Vizine-Goetz (1989: 173), Hagler (1991: 47) and Svenonius (1992: 5) provide almost similar definitions. As mentioned earlier, in the cataloguing context, an edition is usually different from other editions of the same work, either in content or in other characteristics. Terms like 'new edition', 'abridged edition', 'second', or 'third, etc. edition', and 'revised edition', that indicate change in the content of a work, are important to publishers, booksellers, librarians and readers. Terms such as 'special edition', 'large type edition', 'trade edition' and 'limited edition'. generally do not indicate any change in the content of a work. Editions sometimes designate new texts and sometimes designate only 'publisher's changes' (Heaney, 1995: 141), for example, changes in format and layout without any change in the content of the work.
The source from which cataloguing data is provided for description is a basic issue that has been a major concern to cataloguers for more than a century and now has a more important role in providing consistency among catalogues in a global online environment. While title page, or its equivalent, should remain, as far as possible, the source of cataloguing data for a more uniform and effective exchange of bibliographic records at an international level. For avoiding duplicate records in shared environments, attention should also be paid to information taken from other sources. In terms of the choice and form of headings the title page information should not necessarily be the only source of cataloguing data. Other parts of the item itself or reference sources and name authority files are consulted. This approach will retain relationships between entities and will support the relating function of the catalogue.
In dealing with the basis for description, consideration should also be given to the notion that the items to be catalogued are not always 'stand-alone' publications and may be dependent or contingent works. It is therefore necessary to identify and display the relationships of the items being catalogued with other items/works and to create consistent links between them. This has implications for the choice and form of those access points that function as linking devices. Although the characteristics of individual items are taken into account, the rules for choice and form of access points should apply to works and not generally to physical manifestations of those works.
The major emphasis in investigating bibliographic description for OPACs should concentrate on some of the basic issues so as to secure consistency in the treatment of bibliographic entities in the online environment. International agreement is needed on principles for issues such as the 'basic unit of description', the scope and definition of 'edition' and the 'chief and alternative sources of cataloguing data' to achieve Universal Bibliographic Control in the global online environment.
As discussed in Chapter 6, section 1.1, we need to emphasise both the finding function and the collocating function of the catalogue and to reiterate what Lubetzky (1960: x) stated thirty five years ago: "The two functions are complementary, but both are essential to the effectiveness of the catalog." As an example of the potential of the online environment for a better fulfilment of the catalogue's functions, particularly to provide easy access to entities at different levels, the following concept has been developed, focusing on the needs of those libraries that consider the two functions equally important. The proposed approach could also be an answer to a basic question that has been raised in the literature as to how online catalogues can be developed in order to articulate clearly for a searcher the various entities in the bibliographic hierarchy (Witt and Leresche, 1995). It is often the case that "General public users are often overwhelmed by the mass of bibliographic records describing different editions, for example, when all they want is information on the work itself" (Ibid: 49).
While it is assumed here that the basic unit of description is the item in hand and that records describing items would fulfil the finding, selecting and locating functions, two kinds of 'super records' can be constructed for the effective discharge of the collocating function: one for voluminous authors containing the author heading and titles of the works by that author (see figure 7.1); and one for voluminous titles that appear in different editions and manifestations (see figures 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4). The super record for authors can have a simple arrangement of works by the author (e.g., alphabetical, chronological, by type of style, i.e., genre, or by type of contribution of the author, e.g., principal author, joint author, editor, compiler or translator). It may also display different forms of the author's name under the established heading; this has not been displayed in the examples that follow.
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
Works by this author available in/through this catalogue are:
Complete works
Selections
Individual plays:
All's well that ends well
...................
Hamlet
....................
Winter's tale
Poems
Sonnets
Lyrics
Epic poems
Other poems
Apocrypha
Figure 7.1 A sample of the super record for a voluminous author
The super record for a work would contain the uniform title of the work and the author heading, if applicable, along with a categorisation for different editions and manifestations, each category being linked to the relevant sub-category, and sub-categories being linked to actual records for items and copies available in the collection. If we identify and record various applicable sub-categories in the super record for works, it will result in a better syndetic structure. For example, Shakespeare's Hamlet and the anonymous classic, the Arabian Nights, can have super records with the following categorisation for different editions and manifestations available in the collection (see figures 7.2 and 7.3).
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
Hamlet
This work includes the following editions/manifestations, etc.,
available in/through this catalogue
Editions (by date; by editor)
Translations (by language)
Versions (by physical form)
Adaptations and arrangements (by type of modifications)
Changes of genre (music performances, operas, novelisation, etc.)
Figure 7.2 A sample of the super record for a classical work
Arabian Nights
This work includes the following editions/manifestations, etc.,
available in/through this catalogue:
Complete texts (by date; by editor)
Translations (by language)
Versions (by physical form)
Adaptations and arrangements (by type of modifications)
Selections (by date, language, physical form)
Figure 7.3 A sample of the super record for an anonymous work
Super records for works are in effect a device for carrying the concept of 'super works', i.e., the totality of a work: its different expressions and manifestations and the relationships between them (see Chapter 4, Section 1). At its first level, therefore, the super record for a work expresses the abstract work only; it is not directly linked to any actual record for items or copies. This helps the searcher to identify and select the category to which an item may belong.
Super records can be created and structured according to the conceptual models developed for entities in the bibliographic universe (see, for example, the proposed models in figures 4.1 to 4.3 in Chapter 4). The type of categorisation depends on the available manifestations of the work and for each work it may be different and can be created according to the available entity types. For example, Shakespeare's Hamlet (see Figure 7.2) has a more comprehensive category and sub-categories of different editions and manifestations, whereas a work like the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (Figure 7.4) has a limited category.
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules
This work includes the following editions/manifestations
available in/through this catalogue:
Complete texts (by date, language)
Versions (by physical form)
Amendments and Revisions
Figure 7.4 A sample of the super record for a modern work
It should be pointed out that since the subject approach is outside the scope of this research, the categorisations and examples given in this section do not deal with subject access to bibliographic entities. It should also be noted that the categorisations demonstrated here are not exhaustive but are partial examples of the concept. In this context, the terms used for different categories of entities in the bibliographic universe may not be consistent at this stage and may differ among catalogues. Nevertheless, if it is expensive for local libraries to customise the terms in super records, there may be a universal set that libraries can select from rather than having to start from the beginning each time.
Catalogue users will search and retrieve super records through author uniform headings or uniform titles or author headings/uniform titles first so that they can scan the record and decide on the type of edition or manifestation for which they are looking. The reverse is also possible: once a record for an item has been retrieved in response to a specific query, the searcher can move from that record to the relevant super record through an assigned link. This bi-directional approach makes the navigation of the bibliographic universe easier and more understandable. In an electronic environment, linkage from actual records for items to super records can be created through the addition of relevant reference(s) or note(s) using linking techniques for jumping to different bibliographic levels, as has been demonstrated in the experiment carried out for this concept. In those cases where an item belongs to more than one category (for example, a translation from an adaptation of 'Hamlet'), the linkage can be created between the item and the two categories to which the item belongs. Although the technical aspects of providing such links is outside the scope of this thesis, a hypertext technique is feasible in the online environment and could provide such links.
As can be seen, since uniform title approach is used as a uniform identifier and a collocating device wherever a work has more than one edition and/or manifestation in the catalogue, the concept of super records, in general, reiterates the principle of uniform titles. A browsable uniform-title index or authority file with the name of the author(s) of each work could provide easy access to works. The browsable index for anonymous works would, of course, contains no author's names. Uniform titles would thus be assigned to all works which are considered important for collocation purposes. This requires that uniform titles should form a separate file which should be subject to authority control. A similar idea has been proposed by Heaney (1995: 146), who suggests the creation of a uniform-title authority file as a means of organising the 'work' as the core entity with which we are concerned.
Super records help in the better fulfilment of the collocation of different works by a particular author (Paris Principle 2.2a) and also of various editions and manifestations of a particular work (Paris Principle 2.2b) and display them in a more meaningful arrangement. In essence, the super record for authors can assemble different works by an author in a defined order. Similarly, the super record for works is a simple approach by which collocation, arrangement and display of different editions and manifestations of a work can be implemented in a more flexible way.
In terms of bringing the different expressions and manifestations of a work together, the concept of super records can be considered as a revival of an old, useful concept (e.g., explanatory pages or cards) present in book catalogues, bibliographies and card catalogues. What is new here is that, with the computer's ability to organise/reorganise entries and to create dynamic links, it is possible to construct catalogue records demonstrating the relationships between works and their manifestations in a more sophisticated and consistent way.
In essence, catalogues with the idea of super records would resemble bibliographies in terms of their collocating function and the arrangement of entries. The advantages of the integration of catalogues and bibliographies have already been highlighted and proposed by Buckland (1988, 1992). Like bibliographies, super records are concerned with works and editions of works rather than with individual copies of items. With super records in place the online catalogue would be more capable of special arrangements of entries than are the current structure of catalogues. In such a framework, the relationships of dependence and subordination and of similarity and difference between or among related entities would be more clearly demonstrated. Further, online catalogues and bibliographies with super records would share a similar approach to providing a clear picture of the bibliographic universe, an approach which is absent in current online catalogues.
Both from a conceptual point of view and also from browsing the Prototype Catalogue of Super Records, it can be concluded that the concept of super records has the following advantages:
-- Super records explain complex parts of the catalogue and bring together both the unexpected and things otherwise difficult to understand. The user may find more than he/she expects from the catalogue in that super records for works bring together entities which may not have the same main entry heading. For example, different editions of Shakespeare's Hamlet entered under 'Shakespeare, William', as the main entry heading as well as different modifications and adaptations based on Hamlet in which 'Shakespeare, William' is an added entry, can be brought together in a super record. In current catalogues added entries perform this function but not as explicitly as in super records.
-- The super record user-oriented, systematic multi-level approach toward bibliographic entities would give the searcher the ability to move easily from works to specific editions to individual manifestations (i.e., to items described in actual records which are an opposite extreme of works; see Appendix 4). The searcher can go forward and backward (for example, by clicking on highlighted elements) to see the variety that there is under a voluminous author or title. Further, the problem of multiple versions (i.e., different physical formats) which a major issue for cataloguers now can be handled more easily through the structure of super records. 'Multiple versions' refers to the situation resulting when the original work is catalogued on the same record as a photoreproduction representing it, or when photoreproductions of differing characteristics (format, generation, polarity) are catalogued together on the same record, or both. However, here, through the uniform title approach in super records separate records for different versions of a work are grouped and linked to one another, as has been demonstrated in the Prototype Catalogue of Super Records.
-- Super records can overcome some of the shortcomings of online catalogues in their possibility of retrieval and display of too many records for different editions and manifestations of a given work. For example, as indicated in section 1.2.5 of Chapter 5, searching under 'Hamlet' in some online catalogues will retrieve too many records, i.e., for different editions and manifestations, works about 'Hamlet', as well as works with the title 'Hamlet' written by other writers. With the super record approach, all the retrieved records for Hamlet will be grouped and displayed under their particular categories. This will make the searching, retrieval and display more meaningful and manageable.
-- In effect, the super record for works is an approach to simplify the issue of uniform titles in the online environment, in that it makes the application of uniform titles and their qualifiers more natural and understandable.
-- Another possible value of super records is that, since in the online environment the searcher may be a remote catalogue user and may not have physical access to the items in a collection, the shelf arrangement of different editions and manifestations of a work can be simulated through a relevant approach in super records. Super records for works can partially fulfil the role of classification schemes through a better arrangement of different representations of a work. In this sense, they serve a similar function to the shelf list.
-- In their electronic format, super records for authors and works are dynamic and hospitable to addition, deletion and updating. They are open to links to records for new items catalogued or to cancel links to items which have been removed from the collection.
-- Super records can potentially extend access to electronic full texts held in any database anywhere by providing hyperlinks to them, for example, through the actual URL (Universal Resource Locator) address. In this sense, they can provide links to what is conveniently accessible rather than to what is locally held in a collection.
-- Creating super records would be optional for libraries in the sense that they can be made by individual libraries in relation to their actual collection. Those libraries (particularly in the field of humanities) that consider the principle of collocating of works of voluminous authors and titles important can create them according to their needs. On the other hand, those libraries (for example, in the fields of science and technology) that are not as concerned with the collocating function can disregard them.
-- Creating super records requires a degree of knowledge about the bibliographic universe, the nature of works and the categories and sub-categories to which entities belong. Consequently, it requires the cataloguer consciously to create relevant links between related entities.
-- Whilst the concept relies on the computer's ability to provide links at different bibliographic levels, the technology, for example, the hypertext markup language (HTML) may not be available as yet to all libraries. Implementation of the concept also requires some changes in the MARC format.
It should be added here that, due to the existing problems in online retrieval and display of works that have many manifestations and for a more useful management of such entities, similar approaches have recently been taken by some writers, for example, by Heaney (1995) and by Ayres, Nielsen, Ridley, and Torsun (1995). This trend will undoubtedly continue until a general acceptable approach is reached for easier catalogue consultation.
In an object-oriented approach, Heaney (1995) re-analyses the nature of works and their publications. He states that the major access to information is by the 'abstract work' and that cataloguing rules and MARC formats should incorporate radical changes mainly in the content of the MARC tags, to address access problems of 'works' and their manifestations. He states that:
The major thrust of cataloging should therefore be in building conceptual models of works and their agents, by which people usually try to find such works (Heaney, 1995: 152).
While Heaney (1995) proposes radical changes to the MARC format, the concept of super records does not require such major changes. In the concept of super records the existing MARC records are used and linked to their relevant super records. However, the structure of MARC needs to incorporate new linking fields, particularly in the Notes area, to maintain bibliographic relationships at different levels (as is displayed in the Prototype Catalogue of Super Records).
In research funded by the British Library Research and Development Department, an experimental prototype OPAC (i.e., the Bradford OPAC) has been designed to study some of the problems in catalogues where there are many versions of the same work or complex multi-part works (Ayres, Nielsen, Ridley, and Torsun, 1996). In place of the single, unique, and self-contained main entry record, the catalogue uses a manifestation concept to group together sets of items that are manifestations of the same work. The authors state that:
The Bradford OPAC is based on a new internal data structure where the manifestations of a work are linked together in the way that, intuitively, an OPAC user would expect them to be. This data structure is geared towards what the users will eventually see and less towards the characteristics of the source records (Ibid: 10).
A major difference between the concept of super records and these two approaches is in the clear demonstration of the bibliographic hierarchy which the concept of super records represents through the categorisation of different expressions and manifestations of a work at different levels. In comparison to the manifestation concept in the Bradford OPAC, the Super Record approach has achieved a user-oriented, systematic multi-level structure through the pre-arrangement of categories and sub-categories and the links between entities at a higher or lower level are directly and clearly demonstrated. As can be seen in Appendix 6 (Sample screens from the Bradford OPAC), the catalogue is more concerned with the general concept of manifestations and does not distinguish between different subcategories within each manifestation. With the manifestations approach the difference between various manifestations is not displayed to the user. In other words, the Bradford OPAC does not display the bibliographic hierarchy. Nevertheless, once this approach is in place, the online catalogue can benefit from advanced features, such as those offered by the Bradford OPAC, for more helpful searching, selecting and display.
All these approaches also imply that the existing cataloguing principles do not adequately address the retrieval and display problems of works that appear in many editions and manifestations. The present structure of the catalogue and of the catalogue record are not flexible enough to incorporate bibliographic relationships between works and their manifestations and to demonstrate the bibliographic hierarchy in a more understandable way.
The concept of super records could provide an avenue for further investigation into the potential of online catalogues to fulfil the collocating function in a more exhaustive and useful way. Nevertheless, the consequences of the concept for cataloguing codes, MARC and Z39.50 need further investigation. For example, how far would references and added entries be needed when electronic links can function as both, and to what extent would MARC need to be restructured? The implementation of the concept may demand a new structure for the catalogue, i.e., the addition of a new file in the database for super records linked to records held in the master file in the MARC database and, consequently, the extension of uniform titles authorities.
Cataloguing principles and rules can elaborate on the concept of super records with respect to their structure, including necessary indexes to super records, the types of categorisations, consistency in the terms used for different categories and also the links between entities at different bibliographic levels. A project can be undertaken to integrate and use authority records, such as name authority records for prolific authors and uniform titles for voluminous works and anonymous classics, to create super records.
Since cataloguing codes basically deal with providing description of and access to bibliographic entities, they should also give guidance for data representation and identification, i.e., record displays and arrangement. Description and access are most effective if the information on the catalogue record is clear, useful and adequate for different users. This is in line with the objectives of the catalogue, in that the catalogue should help in the better identification of works/items. It should be noted that the inclusion of record displays and arrangement was in Cutter's rules. In a sense, we would be returning to that concept.
One of the difficulties faced by the user of online catalogues lies in the wide variations in the formats and levels of display. This is largely due to the fact that, unlike card catalogues which had a fixed storage/display format and usually presented the same level of information, online catalogues differ from one another both in the formats (i.e., how records are displayed) and in the levels of display (i.e., how much information is displayed on a screen). Some catalogues use the catalogue card format with or without ISBD punctuation whereas others may display records in a locally-defined labelled display or in MARC tags. These variations are not useful to the presentation of bibliographic information in the online environment in that they may often confuse the user, particularly when moving from one catalogue to another, for example, in searching different remote catalogues through the Internet.
The way in which bibliographic information is displayed online is not governed by cataloguing rules. This has often been criticised by cataloguers. Hagler (1989: 212) argues that output formats have, unfortunately, gone somewhat adrift of cataloguing codes and seem to be considered by many to be independent of cataloguing rules. McRee Elrod (<jelrod@IslandNet.com> in an Internet article posted to this researcher on 4 July 1995, and also in a recent Internet article posted to AUTOCAT, 16 January 1996, reviews some of the problems that diminish the value of catalogue records when displayed online. He states that many OPAC displays deconstruct the bibliographic record. As an example, he points to the practice in some OPACs of displaying 245$a$b (title proper and subtitle), followed by all 1XX and 7XX (main and added entries) labelled 'authors'. Just what the relation of 'authors' to the work might be cannot be determined since 245$c (statement of responsibility) is nowhere to be seen (Elrod, 1996: 2). With regard to the shortcomings of current cataloguing codes in relation to online display of bibliographic information, Crystal Graham (1995) criticises AACR2 as having been written for use in a card environment and points out that the code does not address the problems posed by the online display of entries for different types of publication. In a series of messages posted to AUTOCAT on 9 May 1995, the lack of uniformity in OPAC displays was criticised. Giles Martin (<ulgsm@dewey. newcastle.edu.au>) and Gregory Wool (<JL.GJW%ISUMVS@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO. EDU>), among others, pointed out that the problem is due to the design of online catalogues by programmers rather than by librarians. In another article, Giles Martin (1996b: 159, 171) reviews some of the display problems in online catalogues that may confuse the user.
A common problem in online displays stems from the brief display, where the information in the one-line one-record display is often inadequate or confusing for identifying items. For example, in response to a query for works by Michael Gorman in the University of New South Wales OPAC, two kinds of problems appeared when displaying the search results: first, of 18 records displayed, 6 records were by other authors who had an identical name to Michael Gorman the librarian; second, the result was displayed in such a way as to confuse the searcher. The role of the person displayed online is not explicit. Whilst in some records Gorman is the principal author, in other records he is the joint author or the editor. Lack of explicit display of the role of contributors to a work could result in greater confusion for catalogue users, particularly in large databases. At their present stage, many online catalogues are lacking in clarity.
A keyword search on the same name (i.e., Michael Gorman) retrieved the same records but displayed with different headings. The default headings for display in an exact author search differed from the headings displayed in response to a keyword search. A relevant question, therefore, is: what sorts of headings are appropriate for each of the display formats?
In the case of corporate bodies, not only should the heading displayed for the author be distinct enough to distinguish the issuing body, but also the title should be displayed in as complete a form as possible. As mentioned earlier in Chapter 6, section 1.6.2, the display of the name of corporate bodies under their parent bodies also has implications for online catalogues, especially for brief displays. Since corporate headings are usually lengthy, in most cases only the first few elements of the heading are displayed, requiring the searcher to go to the full display or causing him/her to give up.
The elements chosen for display can either bring users to the material sought or provide a bewildering array that turns them away (Coral, 1992: 29). In some cases not only do labels in the full display not help in the identification of the relation of a contributor to a work/record (e.g., the label 'Author:' for relations such as 'edited by', 'translated by', 'compiled by', 'narrated by', 'sponsored by'), but they may also confuse the searcher as to the relevance of the work to his/her information need.
As mentioned earlier, library materials are different in terms of the data elements necessary for their description and access. Different materials may thus need different approaches in online display. In most automated systems, the indexing and display of records is not governed by the format of the materials being described (Coral, 1992: 29). The case of serials may be an interesting issue: as compared to monographs, serials need different data elements for display. While the name of the author, the title and the publication date will usually suffice to differentiate monographs in brief displays, that approach is not applicable to serials, because serials are rarely entered under author and the beginning date of publication is often more confusing than helpful (Graham, 1995). Serials can be displayed instead with place of publication, corporate body heading, language, or frequency. The identification of appropriate headings and other data elements for online displays needs to be considered with respect to the capabilities as well as to the limitations of the online catalogue. In this respect, access points or headings need to be complete and, if necessary, provided with qualifiers. A uniform approach in default listings for different materials is essential to online catalogues.
For the useful display of bibliographic information at national and international levels, cataloguing principles should address the minimum requirements for bibliographic displays at different levels. A more international approach toward online displays would be useful, since different catalogues with different languages and scripts are increasingly accessible through the Internet. Online display of bibliographic information should take into account the potential retrieval of records by a variety of remote users. The ISBD, if re-examined thoroughly with regard to the above-mentioned problems, could offer a solution to some of the questions of bibliographic displays in an online network environment. It is essential that the user should be able to interpret the information on retrieved records; for example, the relationship of any data element to the record should be displayed in a clear way that will be useful to the searcher.
In coping with the variety of needs by a variety of users, the bibliographic information can be displayed at different standard levels. Similar to the levels of cataloguing in AACR2R, the levels of display can vary in terms of how much information is to be displayed. The format and the minimum information (i.e., data elements) required for each level should be defined and agreed upon internationally. In order to identify what data elements are needed for different display levels, consideration should be given to the different functions of the catalogue at each level. A major question in this respect is: which functions are to be considered important for each display level? For example, should the brief display fulfil the identifying as well as the collocating function, and how far? Further, the nature of the relationship between two elements, e.g., authors and titles, should be clear at each display level. One proposed approach to the levels of display is as follows:
--level one may include, in one or two lines, the heading for the principal creator/responsible person, title, edition information and date of publication, if needed for better identification of the entity at this stage.
--level two may include, in two lines, the heading for the principal creator/responsible person, title, statement of responsibility, edition information, date of publication, language, readership level and type of material. This would make it easier for the user to scan possible records before choosing one. The information, i.e., data elements, in levels one and two should also allow for the sorting and arrangement of retrieved records according to user requests. In online catalogues and in the case of first and second levels of display, it is possible to change the order of a retrieved record for sorting and display, for example, according to the authors' name, titles, dates of publication and language.
--level three may include the full bibliographic information with all descriptive elements, similar to level two in ISBD, plus holdings and location information.
--level four may include the full bibliographic information plus such information as the table of contents, a summary or an abstract, and full text, if available, or the Internet location for it.
The flexibility which the different levels of display provide allows for a choice of displays and for different catalogues to present bibliographic information according to their purposes, while keeping a degree of uniformity at the national and international levels. Online displays, at each level, should help the searcher to decide on the potential relevance to his/her need of the items retrieved.
The principles and rules for display should determine for each level what data elements need to be displayed and which functions are expected to be fulfilled. For example, at the first level when more than one record is retrieved in response to a query, the name of the principal author, truncated title and the date of publication do not provide enough information to the user to enable them to determine the relevance of the item. Cataloguing principles, and particularly cataloguing codes, should indicate other useful information such as the edition statement, the name of at least another joint author or contributor and the format of the item. In summary, all the above mentioned considerations emphasise the need for a formulation of relevant principles for online display, a concept that is essential to the integrity and usefulness of online catalogues.
--In the online environment and for a more effective exchange, searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic records and also because of the approach of most catalogue users to recent publications and information sources, the 'item' representing the 'edition' should be the primary unit of description. Nevertheless, in describing an item, consideration should be given to the fact that the entity to be catalogued may not be a stand-alone entity and may be a dependent work. In terms of the choice and form of headings (i.e., controlled access points, many of which function as linking devices), there should be consistency between the form of headings for different editions and for manifestations of the work. This approach would facilitate access to entities at different levels and, at the same time, would maintain bibliographic relationships.
-- International agreement on the chief and alternative sources of information (e.g., the title page for monographs and serials) would ensure that the cataloguing data which constitutes a bibliographic description (i.e., the ISBD description) would be consistent between catalogues.
-- To avoid the online retrieval problems of works appearing in different editions and manifestations as well as for a more useful collocation and display of such works, the concept of super records for works could be applied, particularly in those catalogues which consider the collocating function as being equally important to other functions. To achieve this, principles are needed concerning the structure of super records, categorisation of entities in the bibliographic hierarchy, the data elements associated with the entity at each level, particularly the uniform titles, and also principles for establishing and maintaining bibliographic relationships.
-- As proposed in Section 3 of this chapter, principles should be formulated for bibliographic displays to overcome present online display problems and to make the understanding of bibliographic data more meaningful and consistent among catalogues. Principles and rules concerning the levels of display (i.e., how much information is needed at each level for the expected functions) and the formats of display (i.e., in what orders and arrangements bibliographic data should be displayed) are needed. This would make the understanding and use of bibliographic information more meaningful and consistent between catalogues. Proper control over bibliographic displays, i.e., principles and rules concerning the levels and formats of records, would help online catalogues to maintain their functions more effectively. In conclusion, not only do we need principles and rules for record content, but also for record display. This is an issue which deserves further research.
Back to: