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

Film imprint – Lights, camera, 261!


It turns out there is a field specifically for imprint statements for films, with dedicated subfields for producing company and releasing company.  And it goes waaaay back, to AACR1, pre-1976.

Before 1976, AACR apparently instructed catalogers to create an imprint statement for films that is totally different than for books. And that went into MARC 261. In addition to subfields for producing and releasing company, it also has one for “contractual producer,” a category I’m not sure I understand (since I haven’t yet gotten my hands on a pre-1976 copy of AACR). The order of the subfields is different than 260, as well – for example, the place of production, release, etc. is 261 $f, as opposed to 260 $a. Additionally, the subfields for date and place are repeatable, if there are multiple producing companies, releasing companies, and contractual producers recorded (which is a total nightmare for thinking about translating that data).  Here’s the actual field definition:

Keep reading

Yay! Thank you for this blog!


The Prentice-Hall Model letter desk book : ready-to-use letters for every occasion. (OCLC #11252172)

This volume has a note in its front matter indicating its relationship to another work, which has been recorded in a note:

500 __ ǂa "Reprinted from Secretary's standard reference manual and guide."--Page 2.

and as an access point:

700 1_ ǂa De Vries, Mary Ann. ǂt Secretary's standard reference manual and guide.

This volume is 64 pages long, where “Secretary’s standard…” is 307 pages long, so this is likely an excerpt of only the parts about letter-writing. So which relationship designator to use?


Home energy : products & ideas. (OCLC #10016922)

I picked this catalog out of the pile of gifts, certain that it would need original cataloging, as most individual issues of serials seem to.

Lucky Friday though…I found a record! GZF (L.E. Phillips Memorial Public Library) had already created a record for this particular issue!

500 __ ǂa Vol. 1, no. 2 (1983-84)--of Home energy
    (ISSN 0739-5469).

Yay for cooperative cataloging!


NIOSH/OSHA pocket guide to chemical hazards / editors, Frank W. Mackison, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, R. Scott Stricoff, Lawrence J. Partridge, Jr., A.D. Little, Inc. (OCLC #8734681)

This volume has a date of “September 1978” on its title page and a suggestive “78” as part of its publication number, but this printing history on the title page verso:

  Second printing - January 1980
  Third Printing - August 1980
    with minor technical changes
  Fourth Printing - August 1981
    with minor technical changes

but does that merit a new (1981) record in OCLC?

I checked the edition section of their When to Input a New Record document, and was unsure. It may fall under “difference in content”?

Either way, a full and popular record already exists for this printing, with a 1981 date and a note:

500 __ ǂa "Fourth printing, August 1981, with minor technical changes."

This record most precisely matched what I had in hand, so worked well for copy cataloging.


The red atlas : how the Soviet Union secretly mapped the world / John Davies, Alexander J. Kent ; foreword by James Risen. (OCLC #978389095)

This volume has “atlas” in its title, and has quite a few maps in it, but is it really an atlas? Catalogers disagree; OCLC has multiple records for this title, mostly as a book, but one as an atlas.

Our maps cataloger took a closer look, and said that while it had a large section of maps, they were used as illustrations for the text, not the main content of the work themselves. I did feel the maps were numerous enough to merit inclusion in the content type though:

336  ǂa text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent
336  ǂa cartographic image ǂb cri ǂ2 rdacontent