AMIM Rule Revision Comments and Proposals (1995)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AMIA the association of moving image archivists September 1995 Recommendations for Revision of Arc h i v al Moving Image Mat e r ials: Cataloging Man u a l Based on the Sur v ey Spo n s o r ed by the Cataloging & Documentation Committee of the Association of Moving Image Arc h i v i s t s . Compiled by the Committee September 1995 Members of the AMIM Revision Sub c o m m i t t e e : Linda Elkins, Peabody Awa r ds Arc h i v e, Uni v ersity of Geo rg i a Nancy Erickson, Minnesota Historical Soc i e t y Judi Hof fman, Dance Heritage Coalition Stephen Kharfen, Library of Congres s Jane D. Johnson, UCLA Film and Television Arc h i v e Henry Mattoon, National Moving Image Database, National Center for Film and Video Pres e r v ation at the American Film Ins t i t u t e Linda Tadic (Chair), Peabody Awa r ds Arc h i v e, Uni v ersity of Geo rg i a Co n t e n t s 1. Int ro d u c t i o n 2. Ar eas Calling for Change 3. AMIM Users Sur ve y 4. Over v i e w of General Que s t i o n s 5. Sou r ces of Inf o r m a t i o n 6. Rec o r d Str u c t u r e 7. Titles and Ver s i o n s 8. Credits Inf o r m a t i o n 9. Production and Distribution Inf o r m a t i o n 10. Physical Des c r i p t i o n 11. Notes Are a s 12. Recommended Revision Proc e s s Appendix A: The Sur ve y A1. General Sur ve y A2. AMIM Users Sur ve y A3. Television and News r eels Sur ve y A4. Une d i t e d / Un r eleased Materials Sur ve y A5. Released Materials Sur ve y A6. Personal Wor ks Sur ve y Appendix B: List of Sur v ey Res p o n d e n t s 1313 N. Vine Street ¥ Hollywood, CA 90028 ¥ 323.463.1500 ¥ www.amianet.org AMIA the association of moving image archivists I. INTROD U C T I O N Arc h i v al Moving Image Materials: a Cataloging Manual (AMIM) was originally published in 1984. It rep r esented the cataloging rules then in practice in the Motion Pic t u r e, Broadcasting and Rec o r ded Sound Division of the Library of Congress. Since AM I M ' s publication twel v e years ago, more moving image arch i v es are actively cataloging their collections. Technology has changed so that many catalogs exist on computer databases, although many remain in card and paper files. Some arch i v es--primarily those associated with a college, univer s i t y , or state institution--catalog their online rec o r ds in MARC format, a machine-readable field st r u c t u r e used by most public and higher education libraries across the country. With the growth in cataloged collections has come the realization in the arch i v al moving image community that there exists a variety of cataloging experience and expertise, and a wide variety of types of collections and collection needs. Th e re f o r e, cata- logers looked to AMIM for guidance. While AMIM was certainly adequate in many areas, its concentration on feature films left those with television, news r eels, personal works, or unpublished collections frustrated. AMIM was used by some arch i v es, but was usually adapted according to each arch i v e's needs. Because individual arch i v es have established their own cataloging pro- ce d u r es, or have loosely interpreted AMIM, there has been a lack of standardi z ed descriptive practice that inhibits shared cata- loging. In addition, many arch i v es have unwittingly "rei n v ented the wheel." Some catalogers felt that shared cataloging req u i re s fo l l o wing a standard, and AMIM allows too many options in some areas and no guidance in others. Discussion of the need to revise AMIM began circulating among moving image catalogers. The Cataloging and Documentation Committee of the Association of Moving Image Ar chivists approached the Library of Congres s and asked whether a revision would be considered. At the Library's suggestion,the Committee offe r ed to create a survey on AMIM's use and moving image cataloging practices, and write a report based on the survey's findings with recommendations for AMIM's revision. The Library agreed to rev i e w the report and consider revision after reading it. In December 1994 a preliminary questionnaire that invited institutions to participate in the survey was published on seven Internet listservs and in several appropriate newsletters. There were 72 responses to the questionnaire; these respondents were then mailed the detailed cataloging survey, which was tailored to the types of material the institution stated it had in its collection. All respondents received the General Survey, in addition to any of the specialized surveys that met their collec- tions' descriptions: AMIM Users, Released Materials, Television and Newsreels, Unedited/Unreleased Materials, and Personal Works. Of those 72 initial respondents, 32 completed the detailed survey. This is a 44% response rate, which is high consid- ering the detailed questions that were involved. The Cataloging and Documentation Committee would like to thank those who completed the surveys. The following report is the work of the AM I A Cataloging and Documentation Committee's AMIM Revision Grou p . It will be dis- cussed at the Committee's meetings during the AM I A co n f e r ence in Tor onto in October 1995. Copies have been mailed to the Library of Congress, Committee members, and survey respondents. Additional copies may be requested by contacting: Linda Tadic, Chair AM I A Cataloging and Documentation Committee Head of Med i a / P eabody Awa r ds Arc h i v e Cur a t o r Uni v ersity of Geo r gia Libraries Athens, GA 30 6 0 2 tel. (706) 542-0902, fax (706) 542-4144 email: [email protected] 1313 N. Vine Street ¥ Hollywood, CA 90028 ¥ 323.463.1500 ¥ www.amianet.org AMIA the association of moving image archivists II. AREAS CALLING FOR CHANGE The following is a brief over v i e w of areas that survey responses suggest could be revised or added to AMIM. The issues are dis- cussed in more detail throughout the rep o r t . ¥ Al l o w more reliance on transcription from the item in hand and less on ref e r ence sources in formulating the description ¥ Add r ess the question of transcription when items cannot or will not be viewed ¥ Re- e v aluate rules calling for description of multiple versions in a single rec o r d ¥ Re- e v aluate rules calling for diffe r entiating between major and minor ver s i o n s ¥ Include USMARC Formatted examples ¥ Include a detailed section on group and multi-level description, providing guidance on when and how to describe more than one title on a single rec o r d, and when to describe materials at two levels of description (parent rec o r d and component part rec o rd s ) ¥ Provide guidance on use of uniform title ¥ Devise an effe c t i v e method of linking physical descriptions for particular copies to the other descriptive information about those copies ¥ Provide more guidance on series titles, particularly on describing a television episode with both a series and an umbrel l a series title ¥ Provide more guidance on where to rec o r d production, release, and broadcast dates ¥ Expand the rules for constructing titles for untitled, unedited materials ¥ Eliminate the rule for supplying a title beginning with a person's name in inverted form ¥ Al l o w name main entry ¥ Re- e v aluate rules resulting in the dispersal of credits throughout the rec o r d ¥ Provide more guidance in the placement and content of specific notes such as summaries, contents notes, condition infor- mation, and pres e r v ation actions ¥ Re- e v aluate the form and use of General Material Des i g n a t i o n s ¥ Expand index ¥ Expand glossary ¥ Sta n d a rd i z e inclusion, form, and placement of physical description terms ¥ Sta n d a rd i z e levels of description, allowing for a minimum level of description in the physical description statement with options for a more detailed statement ¥ Define chief source of information; if more than one source is allowed, place in ranking orde r ¥ Provide guidelines for citing information taken from outside the prescribed source ( s ) III. AMIM USERS SURVE Y 1. Int r oduction. Sev en AMIM Users' Sur v eys wer e completed. Fiv e of the respondents rep r esented institutions affiliated with a un i v ersity; a sixth was the Library of Congress. The seventh survey was completed for the Dance Heritage Coalition on behalf of all the active Coalition institutions cataloging moving images; this survey attempted to synthesize the somewhat diver gent prac- tices of diffe r ent institutions.