/227 Manifestations and Near-Equivalents: Theory, with Special Attention to Moving-Image Materials Martha M. Vee Differences betlceen manifestations and near-equivalents that might be con­ sidered significant by catalog users are examined. Anglo-Amelican catalog­ ing practice concerning when to make a new record is examined. Definitions for manifestation, title manifestation, aud near-equivalent are proposed. It is suggested that current practice leads to making too many separate records for near-equivalents. It is recommended that practice be changed so that near-equivalents are more often cataloged on the same record. Next, differ­ ences between manifestations and near-equivalents of moving-image works are examined, and their Significance to users of moving-image works is assessed. It is suggested that tme manifestations result lchen the continuity, i.e., visual aspect of the work, or the soundtrack, i.e., audio aspect of the work, or the textual aspect ofthe work actually differ, whether due to editing, the appending of new material, or the work ofsubsidiary authors creating subtitles, neu; music tracks, etc. Title manifestations can occur lchen the title or billing order differs lcithout there being any underlying difference in continuity. Distribution infonnation can differ without there being any underlying difference in continuity, creating a near-equivalent. Finally, phYSical variants ornear-equivalents can occur when phYSicalfonnat differs without the involvement ofsubsidiary authors. A manifestation of a work is a version differences that might be considered sig­ or edition of it that differs Significantly nificant by catalog users, and the ways from another version or edition. A near­ these differences have been handled by equivalent is used here to mean a copy of Anglo-American cataloging rules. the same manifestation of a work that Two types of users will he considered: differs from other copies in ways that do the general user, who is assumed to be not Significantly affect the intellectual or interested only in Significant differences artistic content. In this article (excerpted in the intellectual or artistic content of a from Yee 1993) I will discuss the kinds of work, or in Significant differences in the MAHTIIA M. YEE is Cataloging Supervisor. University of California. Los Angeles Film and Television Archive. The author wishes to acknowlt'dge the assistance of Eric Aijala, Bob Epstein and Michael Friend. Manuscript received Novemlwr .'30,199.3; accepted for publication Febru­ ary 20, 1994: revised April 1, 1994. 228/ LRTS • 38(3) • Yee LRTS • 38(3) • Manifestations and Near-Equivalents /229 citation ofthe work; and other users inter­ HISTORICAL AND CURRENT PRACTICE definition had been devised that could be over of a long practice in book catalogs of ested in more minute differences, such as applied to nonbook materials not pro­ describing subsequent editions of a work the bibliographer-user, who might be in­ The practice ofcreating a new record for duced by the setting of type. with dashes to represent all elements of terested in physical evidence of the print­ each new edition of a work goes back to The current Anglo-American defini­ the description that are the same as in ing and publishing history ofa work, orthe the beginning of the use of unit records. tion reads (ALA 1988, 617): previous editions; the British Museum preservation officer, who might be inter­ Jewett's rule IV reads in part, "The whole (Books, pamphlets, fascicles, single sheets, catalog is perhaps the most readilyavail­ ested in binding or paper of differing title is to be repeated, for every distinct etc.) All copies produced from essentially able example ofsuch a book catalog. The qualities. Indeed, a theme running edition of the work" (Jewett 1852). Note, the same type image (whether by direct use of dashed-on entries is evidence of a through the article will be that of the however, an eqUivalent rule concerning contact or hy photographiC or other desire not to confuse users with multiple differences and similarities between bib­ the object of a cataloging record is never methods) and issued by the same entity. entries for nearly identical items; in a lilli' liography and cataloging. stated expliCitly in any published Anglo­ (Computer files) All copies embodying es­ dashed-on entry, only the significant dif­ Under current cataloging practice, the American cataloging rules. sentially the same content and issued by ferences in a new edition or issue are question of what is a manifestation of a The development ofa definition ofedi­ the same entity. noted, and the inclusion ofthe dashed-on tion in Anglo-American and international III work is essentially the same as the ques­ (Unpublished items) All copies made from entry on an existing record quickly and tion of what is the object of a cataloging cataloging codes demonstrates an attempt essentially the same original production concisely indicates to the user the degree record. Note in this connection, however, to come to terms \vith technological (e.g., the original and carbon copies of a to which the two items are identical. i that several writers (Wilson 1989, 9; change from the printing of books by the typescript). The use of dashed-on entries is also Layne 1989, 192-93) have proposed setting of type to the production of many (Other materials) All copies produced evidence of a desire to create fewer re­ Iii work-based records; Hinnebusch (1989) different kinds ofworks, including books, from essentially the same master copy cords and to Simplify cataloging. Further has proposed devising hierarchical by means of the many new methods of and issued by the same entity. A change evidence ofthe latter is found in the 1949 MARC records; Attig (1989) has dis­ duplication and reproduction that have 1II I in the identity of the distributor does not rules, which state, "To distinguish the 1 cussed the difficulty of linking MARC exploded into being in the course of the mean a change of edition. various issues of a given edition, any of a :1 unit records; and Yee (1991, 81) has dis­ twentieth century. Cutter's fourth edition I The latest ISBD(M) contains the fol­ \vide variety of details might need to be cussed the possible value ofmatching key­ contained the following definition of ecli­ lowing definition ofedition: "All copies of specified. However, atthe Library ofCon­ words in user-input, Imown-item searches tion: "A number of copies of a book, pub­ a publication produced from substantially gress it is not the policy, except in certain II!; on online catalogs against the set of rec­ lished at the same time and in the same the same original input and issued by the cases of rare books, to collect the various ords that make up a work. form. Alater publication ofthe same book same agency, whether by direct contact or issues of a given edition and consequently f A good deal of what follows will con­ unchanged is sometimes styled a different by photographiC orother methods" (IFLA no attempt is made to describe works in cern (1) the kinds of differences between edition, sometimes a new issue, some­ Universal BibliographiC Control and In­ detail sufficient to identify them as issues. I a document being cataloged (hence­ times a different thousand (4th thousand, temational MARC Programme 1987, 3). Various issues are added to the collection forward to be called an item) and docu­ 7th thousand)" (Cutter 1904, 19). The The fact that the definition no longer re­ as copies ifthe description ofthe first one ments that have already been cataloged 1908 rules were the first Anglo-American fers to the settingoftype seems to indicate cataloged fits those received later in all and are represented by surrogate records cataloging rules to adopt the bibliog­ an attempt to recognize the fact that cata­ details or in all details except tlle imprint in the database ofrecord, which can cause raphers' definition ofedition: "The whole logers have rarely been able to examine date or the form of the publisher's name the item being cataloged to be considered number of copies printed from the same and compare type settings or type image, or both. Ifthere are other differences, the a new manifestation, requiring a new rec­ set of types and issued at the same time" and that in fact they have relied on evi­ issues are generally treated as different ord, and (2) the kinds of differences that (American Library Association 1908, xiv). dence on title pages and preliminaries, editions" (LC, Descriptive Cataloging Di­ are felt to be so minor that the item can In 1941, the definition was changed so as and on paging or other extent measure­ vision 1949,9). be treated as a near-equivalent, which can to remove the requirement that the copies ment, to determine when two items were From 1949 forward, less and less em­ be described on a record that already be issued at the same time, in order to two different editions of the same work. phaSiS is placed on the distinction be­ exists. accommodate printing from stereotype or Dorcas Fellows, in 1915, described the tween issues and editions. The 1949 rules Historical and current practice will be electrotype plates ( ALA Catalog Code cataloging practice ofaddingeditions sub­ were the first to use the term item, as examined. The small amount of previous Revision Committee 1941, xix). sequently acqUired by a library to the card opposed to the more specific terms edi­ research on the question of the most reli­ This definition remained essentially for the first edition acqUired, using tion or issue, when referring to the object able \isible indicators of difference in unchanged until 1974, when the first of dashed-on entries (Fellows 1915, 132­ of a cataloging record: "The objectives of manifestation will also be desClibed.