# Presentation: 305227

## Cataloging Principles and RDA: Resource Description and Access

- by Dr. Barbara B. Tillett
- Chief, Cataloging Policy & Support Office
- Library of Congress
- June 10, 2008

**Notes:**
This is the second presentation in the series to prepare for RDA – looking at the influences that have been considered as we develop a new cataloging code. During the first presentation on the Background/overview for RDA, I mentioned cataloguing principles – the Paris Principles that influenced AACR2 and the other major cataloguing codes worldwide in the 1960’s and now the IFLA International Cataloguing Principles that are influencing RDA’s development. Your handout includes a copy of the April 10, 2008 final draft of IFLA’s Statement of International Cataloguing Principles and its accompanying Glossary. Today’s presentation takes a more in-depth look at cataloging principles and the challenges they present to international sharing of bibliographic and authority data and challenges for the developers of RDA in trying to follow principles but also not creating too much change from AACR2.

## Principles vs. Cataloguing Code

- Objectives =  what can be expected of a bibliographic system (functions of a catalogue)
- Find a specific
- Find all manifestations of a work
- Etc.
- Principles = Directives to design a code of rules
- Rules

**Notes:**
Elaine Svenonius in her book “The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization” published in 2000, said (and I quote): “Bibliographic principles are different from bibliographic objectives and bibliographic rules.  Objectives codify what a user can expect of a bibliographic system - to find a document, to find all manifestations of a work contiguously displayed, and so forth.  Principles, on the other hand, are directives for the design of the bibliographic language used to create such a system.  This language normally takes the form of a code of rules.  However, principles themselves are not rules but rather guidelines for the design of a set of rules.”

So today we are turning our attention to the principles – the directives to design a code of rules that influence the development of RDA.

## Cataloguing Principles

- 1961 – IFLA’s “Paris Principles”

**Notes:**
IFLA ( Intl., Fed of Lib Assoc and Inst) has been the center for international bibliographic standards for many decades.  In 1961, IFLA held a meeting of cataloguing experts in Paris that resulted in the famous “Paris Principles,” as we know them today.  These principles formed the foundation of nearly all of the major cataloguing codes now used worldwide.  This incredible step towards global harmonization of cataloging practices still remains a worthy goal.  {next slide}
In 2001 Natalia Kasparova from the Russian State Library reminded us that it had been 40 years since the Paris Principles and was time to review them to see if they still held up in today’s digital and Web environment.  In 2003 IFLA launched a series of worldwide regional meetings call the IFLA Meetings of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code – better known as IME ICC.  The process should be completed this year following the worldwide review of the final draft of the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles.

I’ve had the privilege to serve as the chair of the Planning Committee for the IME ICC Meetings. {DO NOT CLICK}

## IME ICC Regional Meetings

-                      IME ICC1 – Europe/Anglo-American
-                      IME ICC2 – Latin America-Caribbean
-                      IME ICC3 – Middle East
-                      IME ICC4 – Asia
-                      IME ICC5 – Sub-Saharan Africa

- http://www.d-nb.de/standardisierung/afs/imeicc_index.htm

- http://www.loc.gov/imeicc2

- http://www.loc.gov/loc/ifla/imeicc/

- http://www.nl.go.kr/icc/icc/main.php

- http://www.imeicc5.com

**Notes:**
There have been 5 meetings of IME ICC with invited cataloging experts and rule making bodies from around the world. (1st Frankfurt, Germany - 2003; 2nd Buenos Aires, Argentina - 2004; 3rd Cairo, Egypt - 2005; 4th Seoul, Korea - 2006; and the 5th Pretoria, South Africa - 2007) 
The reports of the meetings, background papers, presentations, and in some cases country reports are available at the Web sites in the languages used at each of the meetings.  Printed reports from each of the 5 meetings are also available from IFLA in the languages of the meetings, for example the 4th meeting report for Asia is in English, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. {smile}
The participants from all of the meetings have found this to be a very exciting process. A side benefit of these regional meetings has been the opportunity for participants to get to know other cataloguing experts in their region and also worldwide, and even more – to participate in a global effort to increase sharing of cataloging data through common standards. 
This international effort is one of the influences on the work on RDA: Resource Description and Access.  I want to be very clear that RDA is NOT an IFLA activity, but it is firmly based on IFLA principles, standards, and conceptual models.

## IME ICC Goals & Objectives

- Goal
- Increase the ability to share cataloguing worldwide by
- Promoting standards
- Objectives
- Develop “Statement of International Cataloguing Principles”
- See if rules/practices can get closer together
- Make recommendations for an International Cataloguing Code (fur rule-makers)

**Notes:**
The goal of the  series of IFLA regional meetings is to increase the ability to share cataloguing information worldwide by promoting standards for the content of bibliographic and authority records used in library catalogues.  I will come back to this goal of international sharing of cataloguing data, because it also applies to the principles themselves, but may often be defeated by the competing goal to do what is best for local users.  But there may be ways for our Web-based systems to help us meet both goals – international sharing and serving local users.
The IME ICC objectives are to 
Develop a Statement of International Cataloguing Principles 
 to see if we can get closer together in cataloging practices and to 
make recommendations for a possible future International Cataloguing Code. This would be rules for rule makers – to identify the rules that we can agree should be in all cataloguing codes.  It may be that the current draft of the International Cataloguing Principles serves that purpose.

## Updating Paris Principles

- December 2003+
- IME ICC = IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code
- IME ICC draft Statement of Principles

**Notes:**
Starting in December 2003 after each of the IME ICC meetings, IFLA annually produced a revised draft statement of principles that was discussed and improved by the IME ICC cataloging rule makers and experts worldwide.  In each draft we found the new principles update and reaffirm many of the 1961 Paris Principles.  But what’s new is that the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles – ICP is now bringing in the FRBR concepts (remember Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records that I spoke about at the first presentation in this series?).  It is also expanding the focus of the Paris Principles beyond books and card catalogs to today’s environment of online Web-enabled catalogs that describe all kinds of resources.  The new principles are written in the spirit of planning for future systems that focus on users and take advantage of system capabilities for better navigation through the bibliographic universe. 
Before we look at the current draft of the IFLA International Cataloging Principles (which is called ICP for short), let me remind you of the scope and topics covered in the Paris Principles. 

## Paris Principles (1961)

- Scope
- Function
- Structure of the Catalogue
- Kinds of Entry
- Use of Multiple Entries
- Choice of Uniform Heading

- Single Personal Author
- Entry under Corporate Bodies
- Multiple Authorship
- Works Entered under Title, Uniform Headings for Works, etc.
- Entry Word for Personal Names

**Notes:**

The scope of the 1961 Paris Principles was printed books and other library materials having similar characteristics.  The functions of the catalog were finding and collocating – I’ll come back to this one when we compare the Paris Principles to some of the new ICP principles. The Paris principles described the structure of the catalog and the kinds of entries very much centered on the card catalogs of the time. Today we are not limited to a single linear card file, as they were in 1961, so that part needed updating.
And you see here, the Paris Principles mostly covered entry and forms of headings.  What’s missing?  Description and Subject cataloging, which we now include in the new Principles.  Descriptive standards came later in 1969 meetings that led to ISBDs – Intl .Standards for Bibl Descr.

## International Cataloguing Principles Outline

- Introduction
- 0. General Objectives (i.e., Principles)
- 1. Scope
- 2. Entities, Attributes, Relationships
- 3. Functions of the Catalogue
- 4. Bibliographic Description
- 5. Access Points
- 6. Authority Records
- 7. Foundations for Search Capabilities

**Notes:**
Here’s the outline of topics covered in this new Statement of International Cataloguing Principles - ICP.  As I mentioned before, it is now out for worldwide review and will be discussed this August at the IFLA Conference in Quebec, so further changes may still occur, but let’s take a look at what it now covers.
You see there is an Introduction, then a section on general overarching principles– in the current draft they are labeled as General Objectives (which is a label that may change). That’s followed by a statement on the scope; then the entities, attributes, and relationships (notice the intentional use of FRBR language).  Then, as we saw in the Paris Principles, we have a section on the Functions of the Catalogue – these are actually the “Objectives” or in FRBR terms, the “user tasks” that we expect the bibliographic system to perform.
The next 3 sections cover bibliographic data and authority data.  Some of the early comments from the worldwide review are suggesting we remove the term “records” to make the principles more open to future structures for bibliographic data.  The last section was added to guide system designers and to state essential elements that we expect in bibliographic systems, like titles, dates, and so on.
So, now let’s look at bit more at each of the parts of the ICP statement.

## Introduction to the ICP

- Serve the convenience of the users
- Broaden Paris Principles
- All types of materials (not just text)
- Description
- Access (not just choice and form of entry, but all access for bibliographic and authority records)
- Build on
- Great cataloguing traditions of the world
- FRBR and FRAD and future FRSAR

**Notes:**
The Introduction to the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles starts with an acknowledgement of the importance of the Paris Principles for international standardization and the increasing importance of international sharing of data in today’s world through online catalogs and beyond.  Here and throughout the statement we are reminded these principles are to create bibliographic systems for the convenience of the users.
The Introduction states that the principles are intended to apply to the description and access of all types of materials – unlike the Paris Principles that were basically for texts.  These new principles cover both description and access, not just choice and form of headings.  And we mean access to both bibliographic data and authority data – what we now call bibliographic records and authority records.
The ICP Introduction  states that the principles are built on the great cataloguing traditions of the world and on the conceptual models of FRBR, FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data), and the future FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records) – those are the foundations.  So ICP is saying we intend to keep what remains basic to organizing information- things like providing controlled access and bibliographic relationships.

## Guiding Principles for Cataloguing Codes

- Convenience of user
- Common usage
- Representation
- Accuracy
- Sufficiency and necessity
- Significance
- Economy

- Standardization
- Integration
- Defensible, not arbitrary
- If contradict, take a defensible, practical solution

**Notes:**
The starting section numbered zero in the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles is now labeled “General Objectives” but in the language of Elaine Svenonius and others, we’d call these the guiding principles for cataloguing codes.  RDA: Resource Description and Access – the new cataloging code now being developed, includes these guiding principles in its own introductory chapters. The Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA has used these principles to help guide decisions about rules.  When you look at these principles – starting with convenience of the user, you will see that we should be striving to use terminology the user would think of.  We are to represent the resources we are describing based on the way an entity describes itself.  Accuracy gets to faithfully describing an entity. Then the minimally “necessary” elements to uniquely identify the entities and meet the user tasks.  We want the information we provide to be bibliographically “significant” to the needs of our users. When there are alternative ways to achieve a goal, the principle of “economy” would have us prefer the least costly or the simplest approach.   We are to standardize descriptions and the construction of access points as far as possible.  Such consistency increases the ability to share bibliographic and authority data.  Integration has us strive to base the description of all types of resources and the controlled forms of names for entities on a common set of rules – not a lot of special rules and case law. And when the principles collide in a particular situation, we should take a defensible, practical solution.  Next in the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles is the Scope – section 1.

## 1. Scope

- Guide development of cataloguing codes
- Bibliographic and authority records
- Library catalogues +
- Consistent approach to descriptive and subject cataloguing
- All kinds of resources

**Notes:**
ICP is to guide the development of cataloguing codes.  The principles apply to bibliographic and authority data used in current library catalogues and beyond.  
Notice here that the scope says these principles are intended to provide a consistent approach to both descriptive and subject cataloguing – They will be further developed when  the FRSAR model is approved.
Besides reminding us that the principles cover all kinds of resources, the scope also states...

## 1. Scope, continued

- Highest principle for constructing cataloguing codes =
- convenience of the users
- of the catalogue

**Notes:**
that the highest principle for constructing cataloging codes is the convenience of the users.  So here we have again the focus on the user.

It is recognized that sometimes there are other principles that must be followed and that sometimes convenience for one user may differ from what would be convenient for other users, but keeping the user at the center of focus should always be our guide.

## 2.1. Entities in Bibliographic Records

- FRBR entities
- Work
- Expression
- Manifestation
- Item

**Notes:**
Section 2 of the ICP covers Entities, Attributes, and Relationships – using FRBR terminology.
Do you remember the example in my first presentation on RDA about terminology? I gave an example of how the word “book” can mean so many things in English and how FRBR names the different entities.  You remember that FRBR divides bibliographic entities into 3 groups, and the Group 1 entities are work, expression, manifestation, and item.  These Group 1 entities are the things that we represent in our bibliographic records.

But the ICP covers not only bibliographic records but also authority records.

## 2.2. Entities in Authority Records

- Controlled forms of names
- Work
- Expression
- Manifestation
- Item
- Person
- Family
- Corporate Body
- Concept
- Object
- Event
- Place

- Конфуций

**Notes:**
Section 2.2 of the ICP says that authority records should document the controlled forms of names for all of the FRBR entities.

You may wonder about controlling the form of a name for a manifestation or an item, but when they are the subject of a work, and we need to name them in a subject relationship, we may wish to have an authority record to document the controlled form of name.

## 2.3. Attributes and 2.4. Relationships

- Attributes
- Identify the entity
- Data elements in bibliographic and authority records
- Relationships
- Bibliographically significant
- Identified through the catalogue

**Notes:**
Section 2.3 and 2.4 of the ICP cover attributes of entities and relationships.
In my first presentation in this series I mentioned that attributes are the data elements – the cataloging data – that we provide in bibliographic records and authority records.
ICP says that attributes that identify each entity should be used as our data elements in bibliographic and authority records (so you see we are back again to the FRBR User tasks – here, it’s to identify the entities. 
We are also told that bibliographically significant relationships should be identified through the catalogue – the principle of significance.  In other words, we don’t need to identify every possible relationship, but should use our judgment to decide which are significant to our users.

## 3. Functions of the Catalogue

- To enable a user to
- Find
- Locate a single resource
- Locate sets of resources (collocation)
- Identify
- Select
- Acquire or Obtain
- Navigate
- = FRBR user tasks + navigate

**Notes:**
Section 3 of the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles is for the Functions of the Catalogue.  It describes the “objectives” that Elaine Svenonius mentioned – these are what the user can expect a bibliographic system to do.   In the ICP, the functions of the catalogue are based on the user tasks, consistent with FRBR: to enable a user to find, identify, select, obtain information – all from FRBR, plus to navigate within a catalogue and beyond through the logical arrangement of bibliographic information and clear pathways.

Both the Paris Principles and the International Cataloguing Principles have a section on the functions of the catalogue.   Let’s compare now them.

## Paris Principles

*Efficient instrument*
- Author, title
- Works of author
- Editions of a work

- _International Cat. Principles_
*User tasks*
- Locate single resource
- Locate sets of all resources
- of a person, family, or corporate body
- same work
- same expression
- same manifestation
- on a subject
- by other criteria
- Identify
- Select
- Acquire/obtain
- Navigate

**Notes:**
Under ‘Functions of a Catalogue’, the Paris Principles focused on building an ‘efficient instrument’ .  With the International Cataloguing Principles we see a change in focus to now stating what we are trying to help the user do.  It leaves more flexibility for system designers of the future to devise creative devices to meet the user tasks.  Early comments from the worldwide review want us to bring back the focus on the “efficient instrument,” which I hope we can do.
Both sets of principles preserve the finding and collocating functions (remember Cutter’s objectives?), but the ICP goes much further. <click> We still want to find a particular book that a library has by searching for an author or title, <click> but ICP opens it up to locating a single resource – not just by author or title, but through any data element that we have given in a bibliographic description to assure finding a unique, single resource.  
We still want to collocate <click> or display together the works of an author, but now we want to also provide the collocation of all the resources – not just works, that are associated with a person, family, or corporate body in any role – like the contributor to an expression of a work – an illustrator or singer or actor.  
<click>The Paris Principles assured the collocation <click> of all the editions of a work, but we’ve found “editions” to be a very fuzzy term, so now we specify to collocate all the expressions of the same work and all the manifestations of the same expression of a work. <click>
The International Cataloguing principles also expand beyond just author/title access to declare we want to find resources by subject and even want to enable limiting a search or filtering a search by other criteria, like language, country of publication, publication date, content type, carrier type, and so on. And we continue beyond finding to the other FRBR user tasks <click> (identify, select, obtain) plus the function of navigating within a catalogue and beyond through clear pathways.

## 4. Bibliographic Description

- 4.1. Manifestation-based
- 4.2 Separate bibliographic description for each manifestation
- 4.3. Description based on an internationally agreed standard
- ISBDs for library community
- 4.4. Level of completeness depends on purpose of the catalogue or bibliographic file

**Notes:**
In Section 4 of the ICP on Bibliographic Description, we again see that the International Cataloguing Principles use FRBR terminology – even to the point of indicating that a separate bibliographic record is usually made for each manifestation. <click>
Bibliographic description is to be based on an internationally agreed standard.  For the library community, that is currently the International Standard Bibliographic Description – the ISBD.  <click>
Next we are told there may be several levels of completeness to bibliographic descriptions depending on the purpose of the catalogue or the bibliographic file.  For example, we could have a very brief description with just a few, core elements or a very full description with as many attributes we feel are sufficient and necessary for our users  - back to the principles of necessary and sufficient. 

## 5. Access Points

- Formulate following general principles
- Uncontrolled
- Title proper found on manifestation
- Keywords
- Controlled
- Provide consistency
- “Authorized access points” built following a standard
- Store in authority records (authorized and variant forms)

**Notes:**
Section 5 of the ICP makes it clear that we want to take advantage of both controlled and uncontrolled access points.  This dichotomy of controlled and uncontrolled access points is terminology from FRAD that has presented confusion in international understanding, and we are still looking for better ways to convey the ideas.  People often understand “controlled” to mean the authorized names, but it really means all the names that are controlled in an authority record. 
“Uncontrolled” then are the things we don’t try to regularize or control – like transcribed data – for example, the title proper we find on a manifestation -  or keywords from anywhere in a bibliographic description.  
ICP tells us that we want to offer controlled vocabularies to provide the consistency needed for locating sets of resources – back again to the objectives – the functions of the catalogue.  And we should do this by following a standard way of forming or constructing authorized access points – so here we again have the guiding principle of standardization.  ICP says to store those authorized forms of names and titles and their variant forms in authority records.

## 5.2. Choice of Access Points

- 5.2.1. Bibliographic record
**Titles**
- Controlled titles of works and expressions
- Titles of manifestations (usually uncontrolled)
**Names (controlled) of creators of works**
- Corporate bodies as creators when
- work = collective thought or activity of the corporate body, even if signed by a person, or
- title + nature of the work = collectively responsible for the content of the work
**Other persons, families, corporate bodies, subjects important for finding, identifying, selecting**

**Notes:**
ICP next covers the choice of access points – first for bibliographic records – to include the titles of works and expressions (which are controlled) <click> and the titles of manifestations (which usually are uncontrolled) and the <click> controlled forms of names of the creators of works – this can be persons, families, or corporate bodies.  As was true for the Paris Principles, ICP puts limits on when corporate bodies can be <click> considered creators of works – you may be familiar with AACR2’s rule 21.1B2 for works ‘emanating’ from a corporate body. In ICP we are limited to works that reflect the collective thought or activity of the corporate body; or <click> when the title of the work and the nature of the work make it clear that the corporate body is collectively responsible for the content of the work.
<click> We can also add access points for persons, families, corporate bodies – in any other roles than creator, plus subjects.
These access points for bibliographic records are the same as we provide today with main entries and added entries in our MARC records.

## 5.2. Choice of Access Points

- 5.2.2. Authority record
- Authorized form of name for the entity
- Variant forms of name
- Names of related entities

**Notes:**
Access points to authority records include the “authorized” form of name for the entity represented by that authority record, as well as the variant forms of name.  

Right now we treat the variant forms of names as see references.  
<click>
We can also make access points for the names of related entities, which we now provide as see also references.

## 6. Authority Records

- Construct to control authorized forms of names and variant forms of names used as access points (FRAD, FRSAR)
- Persons
- Families
- Corporate bodies
- Works, expressions, manifestations, items
- Concepts
- Objects
- Events
- Places

**Notes:**
Section 6 of the draft Statement of International Cataloguing Principles builds on FRAD – Functional Requirements for Authority Data -  and will be expanded following the publication of the report from IFLA’s working group on Functional Requirements for Subject Authority records -  FRSAR.  So we would have authority records for the authorized and variant forms of names for all the FRBR entities – any of which could be the subject of a work and may need to be controlled.

## 6. Authority Records

- 6.1. Choice of Names
- Preferred form of name that identifies the entity in a consistent manner, either as
- Predominantly found on manifestations
- Leo Tolstoy  *not* Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoĭ
- or
- Well-accepted name suited to the users of the catalogue (e.g., “conventional name”)
- Example: Hamlet
*        **not* The tragicall historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

**Notes:**
Section 6.1 is on the choice of names for the authorized access points.  ICP says to use as the preferred form of name the one we find “predominantly” on manifestations – which is what the Paris Principles also said – the name found most frequently (following the principle of “representation”).
So for example, <click> we have Leo Tolstoy as our choice for the preferred form of name reflecting how we find it on most of the works published in English, not his transliterated full name, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoĭ. <click>
Or 
ICP also lets us use the “common usage” principle and prefer a well-accepted name suited to our users – <click> for example Hamlet rather than its original title, “The tragicall historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.”

## 6. Authority Records

- 6.1.1. If entity uses variant names or variant forms of name, choose one as the authorized access point for each distinct identity

**Notes:**
The next section of ICP then brings up the issue of different personas or bibliographic identities. 

The issue is an issue discussed with the Paris Principles and the ICP decision reflects the representation principle – how an identity is represented on manifestations, using the names we would expect the user to bring to a search. 

## Bibliographic identities

- Need to explain variants to end-user to avoid confusion (explain pseudonyms, abbreviations, etc.)

- Lewis Carroll

- Dodgson, Charles Lutwidge, 1832-1898

**Notes:**
Some cataloguing codes of the past preferred to collocate all the names used by a real person under the person’s full name.  But since AACR2, we declare separate bibliographic identities – so Charles Dodgson as a separate entity from Lewis Carroll but we make a link so a user can navigate to the related names.  ICP has chosen to focus on the convenience to the user of collocating the works of a bibliographic identity with separate links to the names of related identities and entities.

We recognize each “persona” and establish a name for each one with its variant forms and link them with see also references.

## 6. Authority Records

- 6.1.1. If entity uses variant names or variant forms of name...Prefer commonly known name over official:
-        Virginia, *not *Commonwealth of Virginia
-            Rhode Island *not* State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
- Or use official name when there is no commonly known or conventional name

**Notes:**
In general terms we are instructed to prefer a commonly known name over an official name – <click> like Virginia instead of the Commonwealth of Virginia or <click> Rhode Island over its official name: The State of Rhode island and Providence Plantations.

Or ICP has us use the official name when there is no commonly known or conventional name.

## 6. Authority Records

- 6.1.1.2.If corporate body used different names (not just minor variations) in successive periods, consider each significant name change a new entity and link authority records (earlier/later)
-         Accenture, formerly Andersen Consulting
-         OCLC, Ohio College Library Center, ...

**Notes:**
For corporate bodies that have changed their name over time and the change is not just a minor variation, we are to consider each significant name change as a new entity and to link the two.  This continues the Paris Principle for such situations.   

So you may have seen some television ads lately about Arthur Andersen changing its name to Accenture; and OCLC started out as the Ohio College Library Center.  Each of these major name changes over time are treated as new entities.

## 6.1.2. Variant Titles for a Work

- If variant titles for one work, one title should be chosen as the basis for the preferred title of the work/expression.
- Forms of names: 6.3.4 governs which to prefer

**Notes:**
Titles are what we call the names of works.  If there are variant titles for a work, ICP says to choose one of them as the basis for the preferred title for the work/expression.  
We might find variant titles on manifestations or in reference sources or we may just know that fact. It’s interesting to note that an expression does not have a title of its own, but inherits the title of the work, and we may add expression-level attributes to identify which expression we intend.

There is another section of the ICP that deals with the form of the preferred names for entities, as we’ll see in a moment.

## 6.1.3. Other Variant Forms

- Variant forms not selected as authorized access point for an entity should be included in the authority record to be used as variant form access points or alternate display forms
- Example: BBC  British Broadcasting Corporation

**Notes:**
Remembering the user again, we want to make sure that if there are several variant names, we ensure access from all of them.  That is, when we choose one form of name as an authorized access point, we need to be sure all the other variant forms are available as access points.  For example, 
The BBC – we have chosen to use its full name: British Broadcasting Corporation, but make a cross reference for BBC and there are many subordinate and related bodies whose names start with the initials BBC, and would be collocated in a browse display.

## 30

**30**

**Notes:**
The BBC name might appear on a resource in Arabic or Chinese, so if a user has a citation from one of those variant forms of the name and searches that way, we can still get that user to the records that we have for the BBC. We could do that by either using the various forms of name for an entity as cross references to lead the user to our chosen “authorized” form, or we could let a system display the user’s choice of a variant form based on their language and script preferences.
Language and script are big issues when we share information internationally.  Here’s also where we see the principle of representation that is trying to meet local user needs based on how an entity represents itself on manifestations, but that’s conflicting here with the principle of consistency which would enable us to share the same form internationally.  This is also where the idea of the Virtual International Authority File comes in - where all of the world’s authority records would be linked and could be used to display the user’s choice of language and script.  It would enable us to accomplish both goals.  With the VIAF, all forms are treated equally and are available to display.

##   6.2. Language – Authorized Access Point

- When name in several languages, prefer
- form found on manifestations of the expression in original language and script;
- Example: Shakespeare, William
- but
- If that is not language/script normally used in the catalogue, may base form found on manifestations or in reference sources in one of the languages and scripts best suited to users of the catalogue
- Example: Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilich

**Notes:**

But for a default, we set up rules to prefer one form of the name.  ICP says to first follow the principle of representation – the original language and script.  For example, we have many language and script variations for Shakespeare. But we prefer the original language and script for the access point. <click>
However, ICP also says that if the original language and script is not a language or script normally used in the catalogue, we can prefer one found on manifestations or in reference sources in the language/script best suited or our users.
For example: Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilich, 1840-1893 – here we have followed the principle of common usage in our environment preferring the form of name best suited to users of our catalogue.  The authority record also gives 43 other Latin script variant spelling of his name and soon we will also provide references from other script forms.

##   6.2. Language – Authorized Access Point

- Provide access in original language and script whenever possible
- Either as authorized access point or variant form access point
- If transliterate, follow international standard for script conversion
- Example:Japan.  Kokkai
- 410 10  $a Japan. $b Diet (1947- )
- 410 10  $a Japan. $b National Diet
- 410 10  $a Japan. $b Diète nationale
- 410 10  $a Japan. $b Parliament.

**Notes:**
However, for the sake of international sharing we are encouraged in the Statement of Principles to provide the original language and script whenever possible – either as the authorized access point or at least as a variant form – such as we would now do with cross references. Soon the LCNAF will have references in non-Latin scripts, helping us fulfill this principle.
If we choose to transliterate a script <click> - for example in the US we’d prefer a Latin script for the majority of our users – we are told to follow an international standard for script conversion...LC has the ALA/LC transliteration tables.
You see here the example forJapan’s parliament.  It is called Kokkai in Japanese.  For the Library of Congress users we have transliterated the Japanese characters into Latin script but also provide cross references from other language and soon, other script forms.

## Paris Principles

- Uniform heading
- Most frequently used name or title appearing in editions of the works or in references
- Several languages
- Original
- If not normally used in catalogue, use language from editions or reference in one of the languages normally used

- _International Cat. Principles_
- Authorized access point
- Predominantly found on manifestations or well-accepted name suited to users of catalogue
- Several languages/scripts
- Original
- If not normally used in catalogue, use language/script from manifestations or reference sources in one of the languages best suited to users

**Notes:**
The Paris Principles said a uniform heading should normally be the name or title most frequently used in editions of the works catalogued or in references to them by accepted authorities.  Further if there were several language editions, preference should go to the heading found in the original language; but if that language was not normally used in the catalogue, the heading could be derived from editions and references in one of the languages normally used.

Basically ICP follows this same path. 

##  6.3. Forms of Names for Authorized Access Points

- Add further identifying characteristics if necessary to distinguish the entity from others of the same name

**Notes:**
To build an authorized access point from a basic preferred name for an entity, we can add further identifying characteristics to distinguish the entity from others with the same name.  

## Different Entities – Same Name

- Winston Churchill

**Notes:**
For example Winston Churchill <click> is the name of the famous English prime minister, <click> an English nobleman from the 1600’s, <click> a grand master engraver, even <click> the name of an orchid and <click> a fuschia flower – among many others of the same name. 

With the ICP principles, we are told to add titles or life dates or other qualifying data to distinguish among the entities.

##   6.3.1. Forms of Names for Persons6.3.2. for Families

- Entry word when name consists of several words
- follow conventions of the country and  language most associated with that person/family, as found in manifestations or reference sources
- Example: Hillary Rodham Clinton
- Clinton, Hillary Rodham

**Notes:**
The ICP then looks at forms of names, starting with how to select an entry word – or the first word that is displayed when you have a list to browse a linear display.  The instructions for persons and for families is the same  - to follow the conventions of the country and language most associated with that person or family as found in manifestations or reference sources – the principle of representation – how those people represent themselves on manifestations but also the principels of ‘common usage’.

In the United States our convention for married women is to choose as the entry word the surname of the husband <click> so for example, Hillary Rodham Clinton – we’d follow our country’s conventions and use Clinton as the entry word.

##   6.3.3. Forms of Names for Corporate Bodies

- Direct order, as found in manifestations or reference sources, except
- Part of jurisdiction or territorial authority:
- begin with or include the currently used form of name of the territory concerned in the language and script best suited to the needs of the users of the catalogue
- Subordinate body or subordinate function or name is insufficient to identify:
- begin with name of superior body
- Example: Library of Congress. Cataloging Policy and Support Office

**Notes:**
ICP next addresses corporate names, putting them in direct order – same as the Paris Principles, and let’s us begin with or include the name of a jurisdiction when the corporate body is part of a jurisdiction or territorial authority
<click>
When we have a subordinate body with a name that cannot stand alone, or as ICP puts it “is insufficient to identify” _ back to the FRBR user task – we should begin with the name of the superior body. Our example here is the Cataloging Policy and Support Office here at the Library of Congress. Any number of organizations could have Cataloging Policy and Support Office, so we need the higher level corporate body’s name to identify the subordinate body.

##     6.3.4. Forms of Names for Works/Expressions

- Title that can stand alone
- Name/title combination with name of creator
- Title qualified by addition of identifying elements
- Corporate name, place, language, date, etc., to distinguish

**Notes:**
ICP next addresses works and expressions and how the form of names are structured.  It says the name can be a title that stands alone or its name can be a name/title combination – with the name of the creator combined with a preferred title of the work, and that we can also add further information if we need to distinguish the name.

##     6.3.4. Forms of Names for Works/ Expressions

- Preferred title, choose:
- Most frequently found in manifestations of the work in original language
- Found in reference sources
- Most frequently found on manifestations

**Notes:**
For the preferred title, we follow the familiar pattern of choosing the one most frequently found in manifestations in the original language (this is the international view), or we can focus on our local users, taking the preferred title we may find in reference sources or that shows up most frequently on manifestations we may have at hand in our local environment.

When we have this competition of goals to strive to share internationally and to meet local users needs, we first try for an international choice but always leaving the door open to focus on local users’ needs when the opportunity exists.

## 7. Foundations for Search Capabilities

- 7.1. Search and Retrieval – by access points
- Provide reliable retrieval of bibliographic and authority records and their associated bibliographic resources
- Limit search results
- 7.1.1. Searching devices:
- Full forms of names
- Keywords
- Phrases
- Truncation
- Etc.

**Notes:**
ICP next has a section 7 that covers foundations for search capabilities – this was an addition made at the very first of the IME ICC meetings in Germany.  The participants there felt a strong desire to give guidance to system designers about what libraries feel are important for searching and retrieving bibliographic and authority records.  They begin by reminding us that we need to provide access points that will result in reliable retrieval of both bibliographic and authority records, but also for the associated bibliographic resources – the participants wanted systems designers not only to enable retrieval of records but of the digitized resources themselves whenever that was possible.

They noted some of the typical devices used in searching, like searching by full forms of names, keywords, phrases, using truncation -  but they left open the possibility for future devices.

## 7.1.2. Essential Access Points

- Main attributes and relationships of each entity
- 7.1.2.1. Bibliographic records
- Name of creator or first named creator when >1
- Preferred title for work/expression
- Title proper or supplied title for manifestation
- Year(s) of publication or issuance
- Subject headings, subject terms
- Classification numbers
- Standard numbers, identifiers, ‘key titles’ for described entity

**Notes:**
Many of the IME ICC participants were involved in getting new systems and were very conscious about mandatory data elements and what their communication formats were declaring as mandatory, so they wanted the International Cataloguing Principles to also state, again for system designers, but also for catalogers, what elements are considered essential – here you see the ones agreed to after all 5 IME ICC meetings: (see slide)

## 7.1.2. Essential Access Points_x0010_

- 7.1.2.2. Authority records
- Authorized name of entity
- Identifiers for entity
- Variant forms of name for the entity

**Notes:**
For authority records, they declared the authorized name for an entity, identifiers for the entity, and variant forms of name were all essential.

## 7.1.3. Additional Access Points

- Attributes from other areas of bibliographic description or authority record may serve as
- Optional access points or
- Filtering or limiting devices

**Notes:**
They also included other elements to use optionally as either access points or as filtering or limiting devices.  For bibliographic records those are <click to next slide>

## 7.1.3. Additional Access Points

- 7.1.3.1. For **bibliographic records** include
- (not limited to):
- Names of creators beyond the first
- Names of persons, families, or corporate bodies in other roles than creator, e.g., performers
- Variant titles (Parallel titles, caption titles, etc.)
- Authorized access point for series
- Bibliographic record identifiers
- Language
- Country of publication
- Content type
- Carrier type

**Notes:**
(read slide)  - you notice it says additional access points include but are not limited to these –leaving it open for others that may be suitable to local needs.

## 7.1.3. Additional Access Points

- 7.1.3.2. For **authority records**** **include
- (not limited to):
- Names of related entities
- Authority record identifiers

**Notes:**
For authority records, we can additionally provide names of related entities and authority record identifiers (remember identifiers for the entity are already covered as essential).

In the initial draft from IME ICC1, we also had a section 8 for displays, but that was removed after discussion about it being too oriented towards system applications.  However, the IME ICC participants agreed it would be useful for IFLA to issue guidance to system designers about the desirable features of displays that would meet the objectives of library catalogs as stated at the start of these principles.  There is also another IFLA Working Group that issued a report on OPAC Displays and their report is available on IFLANET and ifla.org.

## Next Steps for Principles

- Worldwide review 2008
- Influence the new cataloguing codes of the world

**Notes:**
So what are the next steps? <click>
All of the participants from all of the IME ICC meetings 1-5, agreed on a final text that went out for worldwide review on May 1, 2008. The worldwide review deadline is June 30, 2008.  Comments will be discussed among the members of the IME ICC Planning Committee during the IFLA Conference in Quebec this August, and it is hoped a final version of the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles will follow from that meeting. 
{click} This timing is very good as there are several bodies reviewing their cataloging codes right now that expect to have them completed in 2009, such as the Italian rules, known as RICA and  RDA: Resource Description and Access. The Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA has been mindful to be in synch with IME ICC principles as it prepares RDA.
With the World Wide Web and increased efforts towards the internationalization of principles and cataloguing codes, we can look forward to even greater collaboration in bibliographic control to help not only the world’s libraries, but people seeking information everywhere.  

## Questions?

- ICP
- International
- Cataloguing
- Principles

**Notes:**
ICP sets out basic, general cataloguing principles.  It does not cover all the special exceptions that may be needed for very large, complex research collections.  These principles are used by rule makers – they are the principles behind cataloging rules, and there will be rules to further refine the principles when needed – but, for ICP, the convenience of the user can override other principles when necessary.  In AACR2 you were told the rules were based on the Paris Principles, but AACR2 never told you what those principles were.  In RDA you will be told.  In the General Introduction to RDA, the objectives and principles are laid out and then in chapter 8 related to the names for entities, you are told the guiding principles.  The intention is by stating the principles, a cataloger will be able to judge what to do in any situation that may present itself. 
The Library of Congress and many large libraries have huge legacy databases of records and many of those records don’t follow principles – they were based on case law or various rules over now hundreds of years.  So new principles won’t necessarily help the end user with our legacy databases, but they will guide the creation of future records and hopefully future systems. And the principles most certainly are already guiding the development of new cataloging codes, such as the Italian rules known as RICA, and also RDA: Resource Description and Access.  Thank you for your attention.

And now I think we have time for questions? <click>