Saving the Great Swamp : battle to defeat the jetport / a film by Scott Morris ; co-produced by Larry Fast ; written by Scott Morris and Larry Fast. (OCLC #1050114007)

The credits in this documentary include that it was inspired by a book on the same topic. Following OLAC’s Best Practices for Cataloging DVD/Blu-Ray", I added this as a note:

    500 __ ǂa "Inspired by: Saving the Great Swamp: the people,
        the power brokers, an urban wilderness, by Cam Cavanaugh."

as well as an access point for the book it was inspired by, taking the relationship designator from RDA J.2.2:

    700 1_ ǂi inspired by: ǂa Cavanaugh, Cam, ǂd 1931-. 
        ǂt Saving the Great Swamp. 

Later in the credits, I spotted the author of the book as a consultant for the documentary, so added an access point specifically for him as well:

    700 1_ Cavanaugh, Cam, ǂd 1931- ǂe consultant.

200 motels / a Murakami Wolf/Bizarre production ; story and screenplay by Frank Zappa ; shooting script by Tony Palmer ; produced by Jerry Good, Herb Cohen ; characterizations directed by Frank Zappa ; visuals directed by Tony Palmer. (OCLC #1049173374)

The record I derived this my original record from included these statements in a 520, with no indication that they were taken from the container or similar

When the film is inspired, one gets a glimpse of the convoluted terrain of Zappa’s mind; when it is not, moments can drag, but one must admit that only Frank Zappa could make such a film, let alone release it. A bemused Ringo Starr does not so much steal the film as temporarily rescuscitate it.

Do subjective reviews belong in catalog records?

The same 520 also mentions that this was “the first color movie made on videotape and then transferred to film”, also not on the container, but supported by its Wikipedia article, with a citation. Does this belong in the record?

For my original record, I copied the description from the container:

    520 __ ǂa "200 Motels is Frank Zappa's outrageous, psychedelic
        precursor to the birth of the music video"--Container.

but was left wondering if the information in the fuller description was more useful, and if this was a good place for it.


The terrible effects of the poison from the bite of a mad dog … (OCLC #509290216)

This record may have the longest 245 I’ve ever seen, at over 1900 characters long. But is it cataloged correctly? Do we have other options?

RDA (manifestation lacking a collective title) says to record the titles proper of the parts, which is what has been done in this case, and apparently makes for a very long list.

There is an alternative to devise a collective title (though LC/PCC says generally not to) so you could probably do something like:

    245 14 $a The terrible effects of the poison from the bite
        of a mad dog [and other works] / $c by Dr. Rowley.

and include the whole list of titles in a content note.

Which seems more useful?


We are what we are / Memento Films International presents in association with Belladonna Productions, Uncorked Productions, and the Zoo ; written by Nick Damici and Jim Mickle ; directed by Jim Mickle ; produced by Rodrigo Bellott, Andrew D. Corkin, Linda Moran, Nicholas Shumaker, Jack Turner. (OCLC #1048571296)

Somebody asked recently on the TCMMF group how people felt about spoilers in subject headings. I am unsure.

For example, the summary of this movie (in the 520) hints that something sketchy is going on:

Behind closed doors, patriarch Frank rules his family with a rigorous fervor, determined to keep his ancestral customs intact at any cost.

But the subject headings are much more direct:

    650 _0 ǂa Serial murderers ǂv Drama.
    650 _0 ǂa Cannibalism ǂv Drama.
    650 _0 ǂa Family secrets ǂv Drama.

What do you think? Do these headings aid researchers? Or spoil the story for film fans? Does it depend on the type of library?


Transportation Research Board 93rd annual meeting : January 12-16, 2014 : Washington, D.C. / Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. (OCLC #893873444)

This conference proceedings (mostly text-based papers) was distributed on a flash drive, making its content/media/carrier fields:

    336 ǂa text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent
    337 ǂa computer ǂb c ǂ2 rdamedia
    338 ǂa computer chip cartridge ǂb cb ǂ2 rdacarrier

The definition for “computer chip cartridge” in the RDA registry is:

“A carrier type consisting of a cartridge containing a miniaturized electronic circuit on a small wafer of semiconductor silicon, designed to provide additional processing, memory, or storage capacity.”

The extent, as recommended by RDA (alternative), is much more recognizeable:

    300 __ ǂa 1 USB flash drive