Recently, cataloguing procedures had to address the problem of processing remote electronic resources, not physically available in the library collections. This initiated reviewing the basic cataloguing premises based on the description of physical items, and directed attention towards a work rather than its manifestation. Plans for revision of a cataloguing code as AACR have again raised questions whether its strong influence worldwidecompetes with international recommendations as Paris Principles and ISBDs.Many cataloguing communities hesitate to create their own rules but acceptthe AACR together with systems and formats based on them. Slovenia has hada long tradition in its own cataloguing rules and is now deciding abouttheir new concept. Supporting generally the international recommendationsand following closely the recent developments, the introduction of a newcataloguing paradigm is expected anxiously.

1.Introduction

Cataloguing has usually been considered a peaceful and routine work. Inpast years, however, this picture has been changing dramatically.Bibliographic control environment is getting most lively and cataloguing isbecoming interesting to a wider audience than ever. Above all, documents onthe internet can be identified as a strong reason for raising thisinterest. They offer a huge amount of information calling for beingorganized - and librarians do feel both called and chosen to do the job.There are attempts to address this challenge internationally with differentapproaches: expanding ISBD to cover electronic resources and introducingmetadata. On a larger scale, let's mention the initiatives to reinforce thework in the field of authority control, and probably the most influentialplan: revision of the AACR2.

The attempt of this paper is to show the situation in many countries, andSlovenia is just an example, hesitating between two major choices: keepingtheir own cataloguing tradition, established faithfully on theinternational recommendations (Paris Principles and ISBDs), or taking theAnglo-American mainstream approach. The latter seems to be an uncomplicatedshortcut to international cooperation, taking into account the librarysystems and utilities supporting AACR, while the former is generallyconsidered a good but somehow vague idea. Personally, I believe that thewhole bibliographic world, and not only a single community, has come to a point where these options should be reconsidered deliberately. But let'stake the Slovenian example as the starting point before rethinking thebroader problem.

2.The situation in Slovenia

For historical reasons, German and Austrian tradition influenced theSlovenian cataloguing practice for centuries. The oldest catalogue of theNational and University Library, covering the period 1774-1947, wasconceived following the Austrian Libray Instruction. The cataloguing rulesapplied in this catalogue vary from the Schrettinger's rules to the famousPrussian Instructions, introduced into our practice in 1919. They wereadapted quite extensively to the needs of the Library, and valid until1947. The situation after the World War II was not favourable neither toGerman tradition nor to the Russian influence as one might expect: thespecific Yugoslav position at that time was offering a choice beyond thesetwo apparently obvious options. So it happened that the new cataloguingcode, intended for use in research libraries and published in 1947 (Pravilaza katalogizacijo v znanstvenih knji¾nicah.1, Abecedni imenski katalog) ,was based on the ALA cataloguing rules. Twenty years later, the secondrevised edition was published (Kalan, Pavle: Abecedni imenski katalog) ,already following the Paris Principles, i.e. rules on authorship andheadings. In 1968, the card distribution service was initiated by theNational and University Library, expanding a uniform cataloguing practice,including the introduction of the ISBD in 1975, to subscribing libraries inSlovenia.

Parallely, a common Yugoslav cataloguing code was initiated in the 1960s,to facilitate the exchange of both legal deposit copies and respectiverecords among the republics of the then Yugoslavia. The first volume ofthis cataloguing code, covering rules for authorship and headings, andcompiled by Dr. Eva Verona, was issued in 1970, entitled Pravilnik ipriruènik za izradbu abecednih kataloga (PPIAK). In 1983, it was followedby the second volume covering the description of monographs, based on theISBD(M). The second revised edition of the first volume was published in1986, and these two volumes are still used in Slovenia.

To tell the truth, there have always been exceptions to some of the rules,especially in the first volume of Verona's code (form of headings).Slovenia was the only republic with its own cataloguing rules before PPIAKso it was quite natural to keep some of them even after accepting generallythe federal rules. Nobody paid much attention to this fact, even after theintroduction ot the Yugoslav shared cataloguing system in 1987. Afterdisintegration of Yugoslavia, the COBISS system run by a Slovenian vendor,expanded in Slovenia, with now ca. 200 participating libraries (beside theNational and University Library, research, university, public, and evenschool libraries). The member libraries have very different cataloguing expertise, and cataloguing rules have become the crucial point to assurethe quality of the catalogue records. It showed clearly that thecataloguing rules are being interpreted by each library freely, despite thecourses run by the National and University Library and mandatory for allfuture participating libraries. The reasons for this are many: somelibraries had been receiving the catalogue cards and did very littleoriginal cataloguing themselves. Having very few trained librarians, thelocal practice expanded widely. Count in that cataloguing code is onlyavailable in Croatian (with a recent translation of the index and basicdefinitions into Slovenian), and covers mainly printed monographs (allISBDs, though, have been translated into Slovenian). Besides, someadditional decisions have been accepted to accomodate the COMARC structure(based on UNIMARC), especially in the area of multilevel description. Therules and recommendations not found at a single source are of course lessapplicable, serving also as a good excuse for ignorance.

The situation led to the initiative for preparing new rules. The Ministryfor Science and Technology appointed an expert group to prepare a proposal.The three suggested options were analyzed by the group:

a)Translation of Verona's code into Slovenian

This option looked attractive as it would keep the existing cataloguingpractice and would not demand a lot of additional training. Its negativeside is that the code itself is partly out-of-date (it does not include thenovelties from the revised editions of ISBDs), and it does not covernon-book materials.

b)Translation of AACR2

This option was advocated by a wide range and influence of AACR2, which isof course very true. It would, on the other side, mean a huge change in thecataloguing practice, and would still require national interpretations tobe prepared. Besides, with plans for revision of AACR already mentioned,the work might be soon found out-of-date.

c) New cataloguing rules

This option was favoured by the expert group, although being aware ofefforts and resources needed. It would give a chance for both keeping thetradition of all the rules existing so far, and following closely theinternational development and recommendations.

The Ministry finally decided to support preparation of a publication whichwould bring together the current cataloguing practice, both deriving fromthe rules and agreed upon at different occasions. This analysis has alsobeen anticipated by the expert group as the first phase in preparing thenew rules. Nevertheless, the final contract hasn't been closed yet and thework has not started.

Meanwhile, a closer look at the international situation can be taken, andthe vivid activity in the international field has been followed. Theopportunity to exchange different opinions and experiences is by all meansa precious resource for any future decisions.

3.The international situation

ISBDs have been considered a milestone in the field of bibliographiccontrol. Indeed, in the 1970s when introduced, they were able to offer acomprehensive guidance to the process of description and identification ofpublications which mostly constitute the library collections. It was also aperiod of relatively clear differences among the three main bibliographiclevels: monographs, serials, and analytics. Some minor inconsistencies(e.g. loose-leaf publications) were swept under the carpet. The plan for aseparate ISBD for the description of analytics showed up as not fittingentirely into the concept, but after ten years ended up with Guidelines forapplication of the ISBDs to the description of component parts.Establishing hierarchical relationship with the host item, either monographor serial, actually proved reasonable at the time being.

Today's situation however is disturbing this clear picture: with remoteaccess to documents, a publication may not necessarilly enlarge the librarycollectiona physically - the library may only have access to its contents.The so far called article may become directly accesible via internet as anindependent entity (i.e. a monograph?). A remote serial may be eitheroriginal or an electronic version of the print original, and available indifferent formats, while any database again may have some characterics of aserial (or, an ongoing publication as now the term reads). And the mostworrying - they all may disappear from their virtual shelves (e.g. URLs)without letting anybody know - in this case, does the library lose itsinventory? Remote publications cannot be stamped and shelved by thelibrary, and this fact calls for a redefinition of the library collection.

This is just an example to show that the bibliographic world needs areflection on its premises. We may finally admit that the ISBD conceptitself is based on the book description: we seek desperately for title pageequivalence when describing sound recordings, films, electronic resources(title page a title screen!) etc. We try to extend a single blanket tocover all the new media, having the same features or not - are we about toreach the limits of this concept?

What we've been opening our eyes to, however, is the fact that we have totrespass to the new level: it's no more the physical item which is crucialas a carrier of the intellectual or artistic contents. This approach datesin the period when manuscripts and early printed books were rare andprecious, and when an equals sign between work and its physicalmanifestation was still legitimate. So let's start concentrating upon thework itself as represented in the IFLA study Functional requirements forbibliographic records: the intellectual or artistic creation which may berealized in different expressions, these are embodied in manifestations,which, through a specific item, are the object of the ISBD.

The work as an abstract category is of course not part of the describingprocess conceived in the ISBD. Its identification belongs to another areaof cataloguing which has just recently regained the internationalattention: authority control for access points (names, titles, andsubjects). The Paris Principles established in 1961 had, to some extent,influenced building the national cataloguing rules.Together with ISBD, thebasis for internationally exchangeable records and harmonisation betweencatalogues and bibliographies was formed. But the success of ISBD, more orless accepted in different cataloguing codes, was not repeated in the fieldof access points. As a catalogue's first goal is to assist the local user,it's easy to understand that the library will choose a form of a name closeto its user's knowledge. In the electronic environment, to be honest, thisargument is falling: a user from anywhere can access your OPAC and haveproblems with inappropriate access points. The reference system can indeedguide any user to the authority form - but this is a two-step process. Thisagain is true in a card or any other print catalogue, but not necessarilyin the electronic database - it depends on the design of the cataloguenavigation.

The building of authority files is quite an established process in manylibraries - unlike their exchange. The Anglo-American Authority File (AAAF)is a good example of how many problems you have to overcome even when thesame cataloguing rules are believed to be used.

The recent discussions propose a pragmatic solution: each library orenvironment should make its authority file available to others (e.g. viathe Internet) : this enables libraries to choose the authority record witha form of name which fits in their rules and suits their users. Thisfacilitates the choice of the heading, but the linking element for all therespective rccords is still lacking: so establishing either InternationalStandard Authority Data Number (ISADN) or its equivalent is stillnecessary.

Finally, let's mention again the concepts of electronic catalogues.Cataloguing rules and MARC formats have both been accused of sticking tothe card catalogue concept. It may be true - but the reason lies not in thestructure of the record itself but in our incompetence of organizing itsstructured elements differently - although there are attempts in thisdirection. Pat Oddy says that cataloguers bend to the systems' features.This is true - but it's also true that these systems' designers learnedfrom cataloguers - and the circle has been closed. OPACs are prisoners ofcataloguers' points of views, not of cataloguing rules or MARC structurethemselves. The structure of a MARC record does give us all the necessaryelements, and the development of technology provides us with tools: if wewant to make use of all the intellectual effort spent for cataloguing,let's step out of cataloguers' shoes into the users'. It's interesting toobserve how our system vendors are becoming experts in cataloguing,advocating a user-friendly approach in cataloguing rules instead in searchstrategies and respective records' displays. It proves though that systemvendors need and wish guidance and that we should not leave our visions forthe sake of the current systems' facilities.

4.The crossroads vs. roundabout

Have the cataloguing rules found themselves at the crossroads? If comparedto the traffic situation, one would prefer the roundabout. Let's see thereasons:

At the crossroads, the driver is wanted to choose the direction and take itas fast as possible, and in such a hurry, it's easy to take the wrong road.In the roundabout, you have more time, and even making two circles in theinner lane is allowed before you decide where to exit. The place wheredifferent cataloguing practices meet with international principles, shouldlook like a roundabout: allowing each vehicle (cataloguing community) totake a good look at where to leave for the local practice.

The roundabouts demand more space but are less violent: no traffic lightsare needed, and the traffic usually runs smoothly, without jams. Theinternationally agreed principles should not play the role of trafficlights, but should encourage the cataloguing communities to rethink theirlocal needs, and offer them acceptable solutions based on cataloguing rulesand considering technology development.

Roundabouts brought a new paradigm in organizing the traffic. Likewise, anew paradigm in cataloguing is expected and needed internationally.

Coming back to the Slovenian situation: as a small vehicle, we may not beable to control the speed of the traffic, and we support flexibility ratherthan power. But we do want to keep track, contributing to the developmentand not staying behind - and I believe we have enough fuel capacity toachieve this goal.

Homepage AIB-WEB | Homepage Congresso 1999 |