Alternative formats bring out unresolved questions about the nature of information resources. The resources that are collected in libraries have two aspects: the content and the carrier. It is important not to ignore this complexity. Svenonius gives a succinct synopsis of the history of information organization that demonstrates how this problem has been recognized by the great contributors in the field:
The distinction between information and its embodying document is so important in the literature of information organization it warrants a brief history. It is claimed to have been recognized as early as 1674 by Thomas Hyde. Certainly Panizzi in the middle of the nineteenth century acknowledged it implicitly in the design of his catalog and in certain passages of his writings. Julia Pettee in 1936 formulated the distinction explicitly, referring to a particular message as a literary unit and its embodiment in a medium as a book. In 1955 S.R. Ranganathan introduced the distinction, presenting it as the dichotomy between expressed thought and embodied thought... In the 1960s, the significance of the distinction was brought to popular attention as a result of Seymour Lubetzky's eloquent juxtaposition of the work versus the book.12
During the latter part of the 20th century, libraries began to add an increasing number of resources to their collections where the intellectual content was identical, but the content was delivered on different physical carriers. Perhaps the two most common examples are microforms and audiobooks. With the increasing volume of alternative formats, the tension between content and carrier was no longer a philosophical question, but a question that confronted cataloguers daily.
The tension between the importance of the physical carrier and the importance of the content could not be resolved within the existing framework of cataloguing rules. Everett Allgood summarizes the challenge:
A dilemma confronts the Anglo-American cataloging community. Library catalogs display multiple occurrences of titles available in different formats as multiple hits for a user's search query, rather than clustering them into a single entry or hit. The variety of formats and versions of resources libraries collect continues to grow, yet the underlying manifestation level principles of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed. (AACR2) result in catalogs difficult for users to navigate. This multiple versions (MulVer) problem represents a defining challenge of the automated catalog era.13
Alternative formats are also challenging because not all alternative formats present the identical problem. If one takes the example of microforms and audiobooks, there seem to be two categories of alternative formats. In the case of microforms, the content is in no way changed. It is reproduced onto a different physical material. In the case of audiobooks, the content is delivered in a new expression, as spoken word rather than as text. These two examples indicate that one needs to make a distinction between two categories of "alternative formats": i) reproductions, where the difference is only the physical carrier, and ii) alternative formats, where there is a difference in physical carrier, but also a fundamental difference in the way that the content is expressed.
While the volume of resources delivered as reproductions or as alternative formats remained low, questions about how to describe these resources, and how to display bibliographic relationships in the library catalogue were not pressing issues. However, when the production of preservation microforms increased, and libraries began to collect large numbers of these microforms, debates began about how to treat these microform reproductions. There was recognition of the shared intellectual content and also a need to acknowledge the differences in physical carriers.
In the second edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, (AACR2), published in 1978, the instruction in rule 0.24 was clear that the physical nature of the item in hand determined how to approach the bibliographic description.
It is a cardinal principle of the use of part I that the description of a physical item should be based in the first instance on the chapter dealing with the class of materials to which that item belongs. In short, the starting point for description is the physical form of the item in hand, not the original or any previous form in which the work has been published.14
Thus a microform was described as a microform, and the cataloguer was directed to chapter 11 for instructions about the bibliographic description. However, the Library of Congress issued its own rule interpretation for the treatment of microforms, where it directed the cataloguer to describe the original, not the reproduction. Thus the cataloguer, for a textual microform that was originally issued as book, was instructed to use chapter 2, and make a note about the microform. AACR2 emphasized the differences between the physical carriers, while the Library of Congress decided to emphasize the similarity of the content. Even within the same Anglo-American cataloguing community, there was a split in approaches. Each approach had its drawbacks because one aspect, either content or carrier, had to be chosen as the dominant feature that shaped the description; neither approach represented a satisfactory resolution.
In 1989, the Council on Library Resources, with the support of the Library of Congress, decided to convene the Multiple Versions Forum "to arrive at a consensus on various aspects of constructing bibliographic records for items that are the same in content but differ in physical representation" 15
The Forum, held in Airlie, Virginia, December 5-8, 1989, approached the problem from the practical application side. "The Forum focused on identifying and evaluating various solutions for the USMARC record-based communications environment." 16 As Lynne Howarth has pointed out, the Forum favoured a two-tiered hierarchical approach, but it never led to an implemented solution. The level of discussion underlined the difficulties in resolving the tension between the importance of physicality and the importance of content. There was a widely recognized need to resolve this tension.
A two-tier hierarchical model was advocated as the preferred option among three proposed in the Multiple Versions Forum Report (1990) emanating from a meeting held in Airlie, Virginia, in December, 1989. The model proposed an independent bibliographic record for one version of an item at the first level of the hierarchy, with dependent partial records representing equivalent versions of the item described in the level 1 record (USMARC bibliographic record) included in the second level (USMARC holdings record). A complete description of versions included in the second level would be achieved only by combining data from both the first and second level records. The Report, while widely discussed in the cataloguing community, was never adopted. It has remained a kind of contrapuntal framework hovering in the background while discourse on the need for changes to the cataloguing code have continued.17
Even with the straightforward case of the microform reproduction, there was no easy resolution. In the meantime, some libraries made their own local deviations from standards, such as using the bibliographic description of a print resource to record both the print and the microform holdings. It was an unsatisfactory stop-gap measure, and introduced ambiguous records with misleading information about the carrier. But these libraries were intent on improving the display of the relationship between the content of the different resources at a time when there did not seem to be any solutions quickly forthcoming.
The 1990s saw the growth of a new type of resource where content was delivered in electronic format. A majority of these new electronic resources were not making new content available, but were delivering content in a new manifestation.
The early 1990s saw a large-scale proliferation of e-journals and other forms of electronic publishing. This proliferation escalated the need to re-examine how we describe resources and how our descriptive rules are structured. The electronic aspect captured everyone's attention because it was different, but there was also the issue of the connection between the print and electronic versions that shared the same intellectual content. In a cataloging world where one had to determine the primacy of one aspect of the resource in order to describe it, which aspect was one to choose? 18
In fact, the Anglo-American cataloguing world went through a period of time when two different approaches were advocated, even within one set of cataloguing guidelines, the CONSER Cataloguing Manual.
In the past decade, the serials cataloguing world not only had to deal with the novelty of electronic journals, but also to face a deluge of titles needing immediate attention. The short cut option of the single record approach became very popular with many libraries as a way to achieve some control. The single record option, as described in the CONSER Cataloging Manual, is also called the non-cataloguing approach and entails not cataloguing the electronic version, but signaling its existence on the print record. The description is based on the print journal, and the user is alerted to the availability of the content in electronic format, and is pointed to the electronic version. The other option is to catalogue the e-journal, thus making a separate record based on a description of the electronic resource, while also indicating the relationship to the print journal.19
The single record approach emphasizes the primacy of content, and accepts a loss of bibliographic data about the second carrier. The separate records approach includes full details about both manifestations, but may not sufficiently emphasize the content relationship between the two. Though there are convincing arguments for both approaches, the fact that the serials cataloguing community had to resort to using two conflicting approaches underlines the fact that neither approach was entirely satisfactory. A user needs to know about the content of a resource and about the relationship of that content to the content of other resources. But a user also needs to know how the content is delivered. Emphasizing one at the expense of the other would never yield a satisfactory outcome.
While the importance of content is always readily acknowledged, libraries have also experienced that, at times, the carrier for the content may play a more important role in the user's selection process than the version of the content. For example, if a student has an exam on Hamlet, and needs to review the content but will be driving in a car most of the weekend, the student may only want Hamlet as an audiobook. The student may not care which edition of the content is read in the audiobook. If the car is old and only has a cassette player, then the student will only want the content delivered as spoken word on an audio-cassette carrier. So the deciding factor in selecting the appropriate resource may be the type of carrier. This is especially true for users who may not be able to use all formats equally, whether due to physical disabilities or lack of mediating equipment. Anne Chapman underlines the importance of format for the visually impaired:
For visually impaired people, the specific accessible format is often crucial to whether they can use the resource. Someone who does not read braille at all does not need to know more than that an item is in braille. But the braille reader needs to know more; someone who can only read grade 1 will struggle with a grade 2 or 3 text, which includes special characters for contractions of words. The need to distinguish between versions is even more crucial with braille music... Knowing the specific carrier form is also important when equipment is required.20
Alternative formats are an important part of a library collection. The relationship between alternative formats has not always been well-defined and clear. The users need to know both the degree of relatedness between resources and the exact nature of the differences, in order to select the resource appropriate for their need. These needs are recognized and acknowledged in the library community, but information about both the similarity and the difference has not been equally transmitted to the user. Often, either the difference or the similarity has been emphasized, to the detriment of the other.
Resources for users with print disabilities are often resources that deliver content in an alternative format. The content is delivered in a format that is accessible to the user and can range from a large print version of a printed book to a DAISY digital talking book. Thus, the description of these resources and access to them share the same problems as found with all alternative formats. However, the problem is more urgent and obvious because a high proportion of the resources of interest to a user with a print disability are likely to be content delivered in an alternative format.
When users want a resource, they navigate through bibliographic data to find, identify, select and obtain the resource that matches their need. Morayo Ibironke Atinmo described the national union catalogue created to track resources for users with print disabilities that were available in Nigeria. The categories of data selected for inclusion closely correspond to the data that is used in most library catalogues or databases:
A template was designed to collect documentary data on the alternative format materials in the institutions visited around the country. It contained the following fields:
Author: The individual or corporate body responsible for the intellectual content of the material
Title: The title of the material was copied from the braille or large print material; for talking books, titles were taken from the labels of the cassette or the catalog of the hosting institution
Subject: This was determined from the call number and/or title of the material
User level: Primary, secondary, or tertiary as indicated by the host institution or investigator's judgement
Publisher: Publisher information was either given on the material or provided by the hosting institution where possible
Publication Year: Supplied if not found on the publication
Edition: Supplied if found on the publication; for some volumes determined by counting the number of volumes per title
Number of volumes: braille books usually run into several volumes
Languages: Refers to the language of the material
Format: The alternative format in braille, large print or tapes
Status: This indicates the braille grade of the material, whether 1, 1.5, or 2
Duration: This indicates length of time for tapes as shown on the cassette
Terms of availability: This indicates whether or not the host institution will allow the material to be borrowed or if it is strictly for reference or for sale
Price: Some materials are for purchase
Organization's Name: This refers to the name of the host institution and all other information necessary for communicating with the institution, such as postal address. Web site address, and e-mail address. 21
While all users navigate through the same bibliographic data, users with print disabilities may be only interested in a particular subset of a library's holdings, because they can only use resources that are accessible to them.
On its website, the CNIB asks the question: How much of what is available in print is also available in an alternative format? The answer is less than 5%.22 The proportion of resources available for a person with a print disability is dramatically lower than for a person who does not need an alternative format. Given this situation, it becomes imperative to ensure that resources in alternative formats are not buried and impossible to find.
There are means to describe and code resources in alternative formats. There are also many frustrations.
Cataloguing accessible materials is a difficult task if you have high demands on cataloguing. Most accessible materials have a source in the form of a printed book which has to be described as well. The cataloguing rules and the MARC format are not well suited to display some of the important bibliographic information about the printed book in the talking book record.23
Westlind is addressing primarily the cataloguing of DAISY talking books. But he touches on an important issue: making sure that the relationship between the content of the print book and of the talking book is clear to the user.
As part of the DAISY Cataloguing Workshop held at the Celia Library for the Visually Impaired, Helsinki, in 2007, Deines-Jones reported on a survey of cataloguing practices.24 The survey was not extensive, with only 14 responses, but it is interesting because of the comments submitted. When asked directly whether current cataloguing practices were sufficient to meet the needs of their organization, most responded positively. In questions related to cataloguing and standards with open-ended responses, the comments point to areas where cataloguing rules could be improved:
The need for good methodology to capture the media type and characteristics of DAISY books of various types - audio only; audio plus text, etc.
ISBN of alternative formats - link to FRBR
The MARC21 500-field becomes too "crowded" in DAISY cataloging. We need more hierarchy and specific subfields. FRBR is useful for structuring the OPAC.
The metadata needs to reflect two different requirements - that of managing the content from the service provider perspective and that of searching
Problems with the cataloguing of DAISY resources are many of the same problems confronting the wider cataloguing community. DAISY books are complex resources that require descriptions that highlight both the similarity to aspects of other resources and also the differences. The content may be unique, but, in many cases, it is equivalent to the content of another resource, such as a regular printed book.
These cataloguers also voice their frustration with collocation in the catalogue which makes it difficult for the user to discover the resource that matches his/her need. The problems identified in the survey focus both on recording sufficient data to make the DAISY version easy to find, and on enabling meaningful clustering of search results so that users can readily identify the relationships between resources.
Rule 0.24 in AACR2 was intended to make the cataloguing decision process straightforward. It emphasized the primacy of the physical form of the item in hand. If a resource consisted of multiple "physical forms", AACR2 directed the cataloguer to the rules at 1.10. Even at 1.10, the rules are biased towards the description of resources where the cataloguer can identify one "predominant component". Unfortunately, in a resource with a collective title, when there are multiple "physical forms" of equal importance, one is led to use the general material designations of "kit" or "multimedia", neither of which convey precise, unambiguous information about the nature of the resource. The assumption is that these resources are delivered on multiple physical carriers and that the options to give full information in the physical description area will be sufficient. There are no provisions for multiple, equally predominant types of content.
The introductory chapter of Nancy Olson's widely used manual, Cataloging of Audiovisual Materials, summarizes the problems confronting a cataloguer trying to describe a resource made up of several types of material:
The first, and frequently most difficult, decision in the cataloguing of audiovisual material is to decide what the item is... When cataloguing an item that does not fit neatly into one chapter of AACR2, decide by elimination which chapter to use. In other words, eliminate all chapters that do not relate to the item and see which chapter is left. In some cases you will have multiple chapters and must decide which chapter represents the primary nature of the item... When there are two or more kinds of media in the package, one must first decide if one type is dominant... When no one part is dominant, the set may be called a kit.25
Even if one achieved a description of the resource consisting of multiple material types, AACR2 did not give clear guidelines for access to these materials. An example is the music moving image resource, such as the video of an opera. An ALA task force, Task Force on the Cataloging of Music Moving Image Materials, was given this charge:
Specifically, the Task Force is charged with reviewing the cataloging rules regarding the main entry for moving image materials with prominent musical content (such as music videos, videorecordings of live orchestral performances and operas, and including music interactive multimedia and computer files), determining the specific areas of AACR2 which give rise to the existing conflicting interpretations, and making recommendations regarding what course of action CC:DA should take, including the proposal of rule changes, etc.26
AACR2 was not clear about how to choose the main entry, with different rules if the resource was moving image as opposed to music. The advent of new types of electronic resources further challenged AACR2's approach to the description of these types of resources.
Devising guidelines for representing interactive multimedia proved challenging because of the packaging of several distinct media — videorecordings; sound recordings; computer files; printed text; each with their own separate chapters for descriptive cataloguing in AACR2R -- into one work. In that case, the determination of primary medium was sufficiently daunting to raise the question of creating a separate chapter in the code to deal exclusively with interactive multimedia.27
The Cataloging and Classification Section of the American Library Association expressed frustration with AACR2's ability to deal with new types of resources and published its own set of guidelines for electronic resources that consisted of two or more media on one or more physical carriers: Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia. While trying to stay true to the principles of AACR2, the American manual intentionally deviated from AACR2:
Necessarily, practical departures from AACR2R were made... to bring out the critical importance of treating interactive multimedia works as entire entities, while also highlighting the salient nature of the media within. 28
These guidelines, published in 1994, were not adopted by the larger AACR cataloguing community, but they did underline problems with description and access for this type of resource. According to the guidelines, parts of AACR2 work, and other parts do not work and require deviations. The preface to the guidelines already hints at the logical inconsistency of AACR; in the preface, a distinction is made between intellectual versus physical categories of information. While the chapters in Part I of AACR correspond to the different classes of material, the chapters (and classes of material), are not always about the physical characteristics of the resource:
Indeed, there are chapters in AACR2R which also focus more on gathering together intellectual characteristics of the entire package of information rather than on specific physical manifestations: serials, analytics, manuscripts (particularly regarding collections), music and cartographic materials.29
Another area of difficulty with the description of resources consisting of multiple types has been the selection of an appropriate general material designation. Again, this underlines the bias of AACR2 towards the determination of a predominant class of material. 1.1C4 pushes one to choose the GMD that matches "the predominant constituent of the item", and in the absence of a predominant constituent, directs one to use kit or multimedia. If one catalogues in accoRDAnce with AACR2, there are authorized GMDs and one is not permitted to record two GMDs. There is evidence of departures from this rule in some library catalogues, with the use of an unauthorized new term, such as interactive multimedia, or the use of a specific carrier term, such as DVD instead of videorecording. In Jean Weihs' survey to determine the level of satisfaction with GMDs, most respondents still felt that the information conveyed by the GMD was useful. But many were dissatisfied with the authorized list of GMDs and proposed ways to string multiple GMDs together, either with the use of qualifiers, the use of compound terms, or the assignment of multiple single terms joined by +, e.g. braille + sound recording.30 The solutions proposed during Weihs' survey support the notion that users do want to know about the type of material, whether it is a simple resource with one predominant type, or a resource consisting of multiple types. But the authorized list of GMDs was not a wholly satisfactory solution, especially in face of the development and publication of new types of resources.
Issues arising from the description of alternative formats for the same content and resources consisting of multiple formats were difficult to resolve because they signalled a fundamental problem with AACR's approach to physical items and intellectual content.
Raghavan and Neelameghan summarize this problem, and they do not see it as the problem of one particular cataloguing code, but a problem shared by many codes:
In our efforts to improve access to information resources, we would do well by starting with the fundamentals. It appears that, when we examine the history of codes of cataloguing, the distinction between the carrier of the embodied ideas or information and the information itself are not always very clear.31
Certain types of resources for users with print disabilities are difficult to describe because of the same problems that affect all resources with multiple characteristics. The source of the problem lies with AACR2's approach to the physical and content aspects of the resource.
DAISY digital talking books are a good example of a single resource that combines characteristics: they are audio, and they are digital. They have different functionality from a PDF electronic book, though they may be delivered on the same types of carriers. They may consist of the audio aspect only, but some also have the capability to deliver audio and text.
In the survey of DAISY cataloguing that was mentioned above,32 some of the comments touched upon the problems with describing all the relevant aspects of DAISY resources:
The need for good methodology to capture the media type and characteristics of DAISY books of various types - audio only; audio plus text, etc.
Better indication of what specific information should be included in rules for DAISY description, e.g. compression rate, version of standard, etc. Agreement on other information to include in catalogue records, e.g. source document.
Some standardisation of elements. Organisations may need to retain individual differences and accountability for fields such as genre; however elements such as physical description, GMD, location and wording of Daisy levels should be the same across all.
The MARC21 500-field becomes to "crowded" in DAISY cataloging. We need more hierarchy and specific subfields.
Cataloguers of DAISY resources share the same frustration with the rest of the cataloguing community about the limitations of AACR2 to capture the exact nature of the resource and to describe it sufficiently and consistently. Again, the GMDs are seen as a stumbling block because there is no mechanism to record both content and carrier. Some important data is lost in the general notes and cannot be used to narrow searches and allow the user to identify quickly the appropriate resource.
Phillips and Stump discuss increasing the visibility of materials for the blind and visually impaired, focusing particularly on the Mississippi library system.
There are many ways to make materials for the blind and visually impaired accessible through an OPAC, and it is imperative that libraries advertise the ways these materials can be accessed. 33
They go on to describe ways to describe the resources, choose general material designations, and encode in MARC. They also suggest using genre terms. However, for all the coding and careful use of access points, if the OPAC cannot be configured to retrieve and display significant data, then these resources remain inaccessible. One of the areas of particular difficulty is finding a way to identify the type of material and being able to use this data to limit a search set. They observe that some libraries use unorthodox means of creating access. The frustration that drives some libraries to deviate from standards is echoed in their comment:
Some of these means may be correct according to cataloguing rules and some of them may not be correct, but each library must find ways to access these materials.34
A resource may be accessible to a user with a print disability only if the content is delivered in a particular "format", through a particular media, on a particular carrier. Thus, certain data elements will have greater importance in the process of selecting the appropriate resource. These data elements need to be consistently recorded and available for navigation. When a catalogue does not readily allow navigation or retrieval using these data elements, the user is placed at a disadvantage because they have to wade through large retrieval sets that include irrelevant material.
The inadequacy of AACR2 for the description of multimedia resources causes problems for all users of the catalogue. The problem is exacerbated when a user is not able to use all resources equally, but needs to discover the particular resources that are accessible to him or her.
By the mid 1990s, it was becoming increasingly evident that AACR2 required significant revisions to deal with problem areas, both for the description of resources and access to them. The content versus carrier issue was one of the issues that needed to be addressed. The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC)35 held an international conference in Toronto, Ontario, October 23-25, 1997 and invited experts to present discussion papers about key issues and future directions for AACR. The conference, International Conference on the Principles & Future Development of AACR, was the starting point for a major reshaping of the cataloguing code. It began with a modest list of outcomes, action items that needed immediate attention.
At first, it was assumed that the outcomes would lead to revisions and amendments of AACR2, and AACR2 would continue to be the shared cataloguing standard. The action item on seriality soon led to a complete revision of chapter 12, plus the revision of related rules in the other chapters. These changes were implemented through the regular amending process. However, the impact of pursuing other action items, notably the revision of 0.24 and the logical analysis of the principles and structures of AACR, led to major changes in direction. The first shift in 2004 was the decision to announce a new edition of AACR, AACR3, and the second shift in 2005 was the decision to replace AACR2 with a new standard, RDA, Resource Description and Access.
RDA FAQ 1.4. Why is it necessary to issue a brand new standard?... The International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR that was held in Toronto in 1997 identified substantive problems with AACR2. Although the updates issued in the years following that conference addressed some of these problems, it became clear that a fundamental rethinking of the code was required to respond fully to the challenges and opportunities of the digital world.37
These two action items, revision of O.24 and the logical analysis of AACR2, were the actions that would also have the most impact on alternative formats and multimedia resources. Any revision of 0.24 would be expected to have an impact, because the original instruction states that "the starting point for description is the physical form of the item in hand, not the original, or any previous form in which the work had been published". However, the logical analysis also shed light on many problem areas, including the multiple formats issue.
At the International Conference, Tom Delsey gave the paper recommending a logical analysis of AACR:
The principal value to be gained from modeling the logical structure of AACR is that it would assist us in shifting our focus from the process of cataloguing to the entities or objects that we are endeavouring to represent in our catalogues, from the specifics of individual rules to the operative assumptions and principles that inform the rules, and from the formal structure of the catalogue record to the logical structure underlying the data in the record. The discipline of the modeling exercise itself would serve to highlight anomalies within the rules and inconsistencies in the application of basic principles. It would also oblige us to clarify our thinking with regard to the concepts that are integral to the logical design of the code. Perhaps most important of all, the development of a model would provide us with a clear framework to be used in determining how to develop and extend the code to reflect newly emerging phenomena in the universe of information objects.38
Though not specifically addressing alternative formats or multimedia resources, this logical analysis would bring to light limitations, anomalies and inconsistencies in AACR2, including those that affect alternative formats and multimedia resources. When Delsey suggested identifying entities, their attributes and the relationships between the entities, it was the work in this area that had the maximum impact on the resolution of problems associated with alternative formats and multimedia resources.
12. Elaine Svenonius. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000): 8-9.
13. Julian Everett Allgood. "Serials and Multiple Versions, or the Inexorable Trend toward Work-Level Displays." Library Resources & Technical Services 51, no. 3 (July 2007): 160.
14. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. 2nd ed. (Chicago: American Library Association; Ottawa: Canadian Library Association, 1978), 8.
15. Multiple Versions Forum Report: Report from a Meeting held December 6-8, 1989, Airlie, Virginia. (Washington: Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress, 1990), 3.
17. Lynne C. Howarth. "Content versus Carrier." Conference paper for the International Conference on the Principles and Future development of AACR, October 1997. Version posted prior to the conference, 7.
18. Chris Oliver. "E-Journals and the Development of Resource Description and Access." In E-journals access and management, ed. Wayne Jones (New York: Routledge, 2009), 203.
19. Chris Oliver. "FRBR is everywhere but whatever happened to the format variation issue? Serials Librarian 45, no.4 (2004): 33.
20. Chapman, "Resource discovery: catalogs, cataloguing and the user," 928-929.
21. Morayo Ibironke Atinmo. "Setting Up a Computerized Catalog and Distribution Database of Alternative Format Materials for Blind and Visually Impaired Persons in Nigeria." Library Trends 55, no. 4 (Spring 2007): 835-836.
22. CNIB. "Issues and Myths about Library Services for Canadians with a Print Disability."
24. Courtney Deines-Jones. "Report from the field: how things are now." PowerPoint presentation given at the DAISY Cataloguing Workshop, Celia Library for the Visually Impaired, Helsinki, Finland, June 14-15, 2007. www.celialib.fi/info/Daisy_workshop2007/deines_jones.ppt.
Also the results of the survey available from the workshop's website:
25. Nancy Olson. Cataloging of Audiovisual Materials and Other Special Materials. 5th ed. (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2008): 19-20.
27. Howarth. Content versus Carrier, 4.
28. ALCTS CC:DA Interactive Multimedia Guidelines Review Task Force. Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia. (Chicago: American Library Association, 1994): vi.
29. Ibid, iv.
30. Jean Weihs. "General Material Designation in the Twenty-First Century: Results of a Survey."
32. Reported by Deines-Jones at the DAISY cataloguing workshop held at the Celia Library for the Visually Impaired, Helsinki, in 2007: Deines-Jones. "Report from the field: how things are now."
33. Joi Jone Phillips and Sheryl Stump. "Making Materials for the Blind and the Visually Impaired Visible in the Library's Catalog and Web Site." Mississippi Libraries 70, no. 2 (2006): 35.
34. Ibid, 35.
35. The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR changed its name to the Joint Steering Committtee for Development of RDA in 2007. When reference is made to the JSC, or the Joint Steering Committee, it refers to this committee, under its earlier or later name, depending on the context.
38. Tom Delsey. "Modeling the Logic of AACR." Conference paper for the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, October 1997. Version posted prior to the conference, 3.