Svensk Biblioteksförenings kommitté för katalogisering (The Swedish Library Association, Cataloguing Committee)

ISBD(A), 2006 draft
Comments from the Cataloguing Committee of the Swedish Library Association

Stockholm, 12. April 2006

Anders Cato
Chair of the Working Group discussing the draft.

General comments
The 2006 draft of the new, revised ISBD(A) shows several significant changes, as well as some other major and minor changes, compared to the last edition. Cataloguing Committee welcomes these changes and we consider the revised ISBD(A) in general a much better tool to work with than the previous editions.

The Committee welcomes the added use of notes, something which had already been taken into practice in many cases within the National Library of Sweden, and the library now sees a ratification of a practice already established. The use of cross references is good, and we actually propose to add even a few more in some cases, see the specific comments below.

The increased number of examples is of good help to users, but in a few places we found the examples a bit too complex and we would like to have them further explained.

We appreciate that the rule 0.3.2. F still stands as it was before and allows us to record parts that are linguistically linked to each other in the same area, even though some elements should according to the rules be in another. Once again, the most important rule should always be to transcribe the information the way it appears in the resource and if ISBD punctuation then only confuses it is better left out.

We understand that the use of authority files and authority help is not something that has been part of this working group’s mission, but we still would like to stress the importance of these tools and the importance to include authority help in as many fields as possible.

Specific comments to the various paragraphs
If nothing is noted under a specific paragraph, this means that we fully agree with the text and have nothing more to comment on.

0.2 We suggest that a few more cross references be added for example between “Title” and other kinds of titles and also between “Issued with” and “Bound with”. The meanings of the different definitions are not the same, but it might be likely that a user who is looking for one definition looks at the other and does not find the right term because there is no reference guiding him/her in the right direction.
ISSN: Why include ISSN in ISBD(A)?
Issue: We do not understand definition no. 2 of “Issue”. What is meant in this context?

0.4.1 We applaud the simplification of this rule which now renders it much easier to follow.

0.7.2 We don’t really see the point of using both marks of omission and the abbreviation “et al.” to show that the statement of responsibility has been abridged. Is it not satisfactory to only use marks of omission?

0.7.6 Why has the note prescribing added uniform titles if necessary been abandoned? What is one supposed to do instead of adding uniform titles? In the National Library of Sweden both added information within brackets and an explanatory note have been used in these cases.

0.8 We are very happy that it is possible to reflect the actual actual ”spelling” as found in the publication, i.e. the option to transcribe upper case V as v, U as u, etc. The paragraph beginning with “Alternatively, bibliographic agencies that do not create definitive records…” we think should be moved to a note and not be included in the main text. This alternative should preferably not be stressed as much as it is when it is included in the main text.

1.1.2.7 We fully agree with the new text, but find the examples a bit hard to understand. With more comments they might be more easily understandable.

1.1.2.10 We agree with the notion that a publication without a collective title should not be looked upon as a publication without a title proper. The sequence of titles should then make up the title proper, just as the new text proposes.

1.1.4.2.1 We question the rule laid out in the second paragraph. Why display works presented on pages not laid out as title pages in the title area? Is it not better to have these displayed in a note field?

2.1.1 The new, revised, text is much better than the earlier text.

2.1.3 We have nothing to object to this paragraph, but one small thing. We do think that the phrase [With a new appendix] belong in a note and not in the edition area.

4. We definitely prefer the B option in this part. In this option the wording and phrasing of the original publication is reflected more exactly and that is the way it should be done for older monographic publications. The main reasons for choosing option B are:

- It is easier to transcribe the imprint as it is rather than to try to analyze the functions hidden in the wording.

- It is safe, i.e. misinterpretations are avoided.

- The need of providing controlled or authorized data for statement of responsibility in area 1 is evident and accepted. This is just a similar solution as for area 4. A library system should be able to handle different forms of names and cross references between them in an authority system. That being implemented not so many notes are needed in the bibliographic records.

- In old material, splitting up and changing complicated imprints into controlled bibliographic description elements may lead to arbitrary interpretation and large differences between cataloguing agencies, while precise citing of the imprint, by itself, is a good standardization.

When citing directly we prefer the way prescribed in B 4.1.1, that means [Colophon:]… or in a note. The best way is always to cite the imprint exactly the way it is.

5.1.2.7 The creation of two options in this paragraph makes it much more flexible which we fully support.

5.2 We disagree with the fact that the illustration statement has been turned optional. We understand that ISBD(A) wants to follow the other ISBD’s as closely as possible, but still believe that the illustration statement is more valuable to old material than to other. Here we must consider the nature of old material which many times requires a more detailed description, simply in order to make the object more easily identifiable.

5.3.2 The text of this paragraph has become much clearer.

7.9 4) A space is missing between “information” and “and”.

8.1.2 The paragraph numbering is missing – but the text is there.