comparison of cataloguing codes: croatian vs american...

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 1 of 37

Comparison of cataloguing codes: Croatian vs. American cataloguing practice

AbstractThe purpose of this paper is, using the methodology of comparative analysis, to examine closely two cataloguing codes: AACR2, used in the USA, American and PPIAK, used in CroatiaCroatian, and find out the similarities and differences in their approaches and solutions of certain bibliographic problems. The comparison with the American codecode used in the United States is particularly significant since the new revised edition of the code, entitled Resource Description and Access, is going to affect the cataloguing community at the global level and it is greatly based on Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. The paper concludes with the recommendations for the changes and revisions in the Croatian code.

1. IntroductionThe objectives of an alphabetical catalogue have remained more or less the same ever

since Charles Amy Ammi Cutter wrote his objectives of the dictionary catalogue in 18761.

Although one would expect the objectives to change through time with changes in

bibliographic world and the advances in technology, Cutter's objectives are still valid, with

only one or two more objectives added to them. The only thing that seems to have been

changing over time was a shift from the catalogue's emphasis on either providing access to the

work or a specific document e.g. manifestation that contains that particular work. Even in

today's networked environment of OPACs and WebPACs and the emergence of new

conceptual models of organization of information such is the one proposed by the IFLA Study

Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, the objectives seem

basically unchanged, only slightly modified and extended2. However, the FRBR model places

the focus, once again, on the literary unit e.g. work as was the case in pre-Panizzi's time3.

The purpose of this paper is not, however, to examine the objectives of the

alphabetical catalogue, but to look into how those objectives were met by the cataloguing

codes and manuals in two different cultures, American and Croatian, with a particular

emphasis on similarities and differences of the approaches. Still, the objectives of the

catalogue, their importance and preference of one objective over another, cannot be ignored

since it greatly influences the approach the code takes, as will later be demonstrated.

Croatian professional legacy in the area of library science was initially strongly

connected to the tradition of German and Austrian libraries and their cataloguing practices4

e.g. Prussian Instructions, as opposed to Anglo-American, Italian or French. This paper,

however, is not going to go so much in the past but focus on the cataloguing manual used

1


today in Croatian libraries, namely, Eva Verona's Pravilnik i priručnik za izradbu abecednih

kataloga (PPIAK)5.

2. Croatia's cataloguing manual: the background

Up until 1961 all the activities connected with the work on cataloguing manuals were

carried out within the boundaries of the republics of former Yugoslavia6 and were heavily

relying on Prussian Instructions as well as the library practice of Austrian and German library

communities.

During the 1930-ies of the 20th century Croatian librarians started working on a

cataloguing code that was supposed to describe the alphabetical catalogue and cataloguing

practice of the National and University Library in Zagreb7. Work on that code was a

continuous effort and although it existed only in a manuscript form, after the World War II it

became a model for many other Croatian libraries. However, there was a growing need for a

new and modern cataloguing code, designed for all Croatian libraries. Eva Verona8, as the

most knowledgeable and competent library professional in Croatia, was therefore

commissioned in 1959 by the Croatian Bord for Culture and Science and the Croatian Library

Association to create a new and modern library code, applicable to all libraries in Croatia.

Work on the new code was temporarily interrupted in 1960 due to preparations for the

International Conference on Cataloguing Principles (Paris, 1961).

At the same time, some Yugoslav republics (e.g. Slovenia and Serbia) published the

descriptions of their cataloguing practices, which, often enough, differed in many aspects as

well as approaches to cataloguing issues. Therefore, the Paris Conference on Cataloguing

Principles could not come at the better time for the Yugoslav library community. Immediately

after the conference (December 1961), the Cataloguing Section of the Yugoslav Library

Association made a decision to start work on the new Yugoslav cataloguing manual, which

would integrate the Paris Principles. That marked an important chapter in the cataloguing

history of Yugoslav librarianship because that was the first step toward creating the uniform

cataloguing practice for the country as a whole.

Work on the code started in 1962 initially focused on headings, their choice and form,

and the draft of the first section was published9 the very same year. Drafts of three other

sections were published in 1963, 1965, and 1967, sent out to library associations of the

Yugoslav republics and were open for review and comments. In 1965 it was decided to

publish the new manual in two parts: the first part would include the rules about the headings,

2


the second one about the cataloguing description (including the filing rules)10. The first part

was published in 1970, and in 1987 was revised to incorporate some changes, especially

significant in chapters devoted to non-European-type names (III.2.4) and anonymous

publications ( III.4) . The second part was published in 1983 and had no later editions.

The work on the second part of the Manual, the one that dealt with cataloguing description,

relied heavily on the first edition of International Standard Bibliographic Description for

monographic publications - ISBD(M) from 197411. When the second edition of ISBD(M)

appeared in 1978, the work on the Manual adjusted to reflect the changes in the new revision

as well as new terminology12. The second part contains the introductory chapter that offers

general rules for the description of other types of material, however only as an introduction

for the main object of the publication, namely, the cataloguing description for monographs

and finite series. The Manual states that it is intended for the creation of main alphabet

catalogues in all library types in Yugoslavia, therefore excluding the rules for the description

of resources such as cartographic material, non-book material, ephemera, etc. Those rules are

present only in cases when special material types fulfill the requirements to be included in the

main alphabet catalogue. This particular decision was later-on regretted by many Croatian

librarians because until today Croatian library community has not been motivated enough to

create rules for other types of materials, which are currently being described according to

IFLA's ISBD publications for various types of material. What was once meant to be a

temporary, eventually became the end solution.

The new code attempted to do away with all the flaws of old cataloguing manuals (e.g.

lack of firm foundation, inner coherence, absence of principles, etc.). Also, in the Introductory

part the manual defined the object of catalogisation (neglected in the old manuals): the

abstract work is clearly distinguished from its manifestation that is being described13. The new

manual had one more significance for the Yugoslav library community: it contributed to the

consequent and widespread usage of cataloguing terminology, which was in its infancy in the

former Yugoslavia. However, the terminology used in the manual today is mostly outdated

and the manual requires, among other things, serious revision and updating of terminology.

The publication of the Manual was a great achievement for the Yugoslav library

community because it incorporated all international recommendations and instructions for the

cataloguing practice (created on the basis of the Paris Principles, ISBD(M) and (G), as well as

recommendations for a form and structure of corporate headings) which contributed to a high

level of standardization of cataloguing description among Yugoslav libraries and created a

sound foundation for the initial attempts toward library automation and record sharing.

3


However, after Eva Verona nobody continued the work on the updating of the Manual in

Croatia. Verona was a brilliant visionary and the Manual, although outdated, still offers good

solutions for many bibliographic problems. However, the Manual was created at the time

when computers in libraries and machine readable cataloguing were in their infancy, and

lacks solutions for many bibliographic dilemmas cataloguers face today. Those problems

might partly be alleviated if in Croatian cataloguing community there were an equivalent to

American Rules and Interpretations. But there is not.

Even though Verona's Manual is still the only manual used for the description of the

monograph publications, the new and changed environment and new types of material pose

greater and greater challenges for Croatian cataloguers, and the fact that the Manual must be

revised and updated cannot be ignored any longer.

The problem of an outdated cataloguing manual face many bibliographic communities

in the world. Since the Anglo-American cataloguing practice seems to have become dominant

on the international level it is fair to conclude that the new revision of AACR2 entitled

Resource and Description Access (RDA) will affect cataloguing practice at the international

level, even in the library communities that have their own cataloging manuals. At the moment

Croatian cataloguing community has not decided which path to take in the revision of the

Verona's Manual. Many think it would be prudent to wait for the RDA to come out and to use

it as a model for the revisions of the Croatian Manual not only because of the recent purchase

of the Voyager Library Management Software System for the National and University Library

in Zagreb and the needs of Croatian academic libraries14 but also because the work on RDA

gathered the most prominent authorities in the cataloguing world and their decisions,

published in RDA, would have an immense impact on the cataloguing practice at a global

level.

This paper therefore offers comparison of Croatian and Anglo-American cataloguing

codes as a possible contribution to a later revision of Eva Verona's cataloguing manual.

3. Comparison of cataloguing codes

3.1. Manuals

The comparison was carried out on the basis of the following cataloguing

manualscodes:

4


Croatian code: Verona, E. Pravilnik i priručnik za izradbu abecednih kataloga.

Zagreb : Hrvatsko bibliotekarsko društvo, 1983-1986. Dio 1: Odrednice i redalice.

2. izmijenjeno izd. 1986. Dio 2: Kataložni opis. 1983. (Verona, E. Manual for the

creation of alphabetical catalogues. Zagreb : Croatian Library Association, 1983-

1986. Part 1: Headings. 2nd revised ed. 1986. Part 2: Cataloguing description.

1983)

American code: Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. 2nd ed. (2002 revision with

2005 updates) retrieved from Cataloger's Desktop http://desktop.loc.gov

3.2. Focus of comparison

The starting point for this comparison will be the Croatian cataloguing code.

Therefore, this comparison will focus only on the type of materials included in the Croatian

code and disregard other types of materials included in the Anglo-American codeAACR2R.

In other words, it will concentrate on monographic publications . Also, the comparison does

not include special rules for names or materials in certain languages.

This comparison however, does not intend to be entirely detailed and comprehensive,

but to offer insight into the main differences between two cataloguing codes.

3.3. Comparison results

3.3.1. Organization

The first obvious distinction between two manuals is that the Croatian manual starts

with headings, their choice and form (Part 1), whereas the Anglo-American starts with the

cataloguing description. Although, unfortunately, Eva Verona did not leave the written

explanation for the reasoning that lay behind that decision, it is our speculation that the idea

was that the bibliographic description starts with the choice and formation of the heading as

the most important part of the description, and is followed by the description. We must not

forget that Croatian manual was created primarily for card catalogues where a cataloguer is

prompted to first think about the authorship of the item and the choice and form of the proper

heading and then continue with the description of the item. Nowadays in templates offered by

various software solutions and formats for machine readable cataloguing this decision tends to

be postponed15 and cataloguer can (and usually does) leave it for the end of the description

process. Namely, in situations that require additional checking or work by the cataloguer (e.g.

pseudonyms, prefixes, works of mixed responsibility, etc.) many cataloguers may decide to

5

http://desktop.loc.gov/


fill in first the elements that are straightforward and easy to detect, leaving the decision on the

form and choice of author heading for the end of the cataloguing process.

3.3.2. Objectives of the alphabetical catalogueObjectives of the alphabetical catalogue are the most important part of the introductory

chapter of the Croatian manual. The manual states three objectives derived directly from the

Paris Principles16:

1. alphabetical catalogue must provide information whether the library possesses the

item requested (the Paris principle 2.1)

2. alphabetical catalogue should provide an overview of editions, translations, and

transformations manifestations of a specific work (the Paris principle 2.2.b)

3. alphabetical catalogue should provide an overview of all items which contain

works of a specific author (the Paris Principle 2.2.a)

The Anglo-American manual, however, does not, in its current edition (nor in the previous

one from 1998) include the objectives of the catalogue. The RDA draft, on the other hand,

offers the functional objectives of the recorded data used to describe a resource. Those data

should enable the user to17:

identify the resource described (i.e., to confirm that the resource described corresponds to

the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar

characteristics);

select a resource that is appropriate to the user’s requirements with respect to content,

format, etc.

Recommendation: Croatian code should revise and rewrite its objectives to reflect generic

tasks performed by users when searching or using both card and online catalogues. Generic

tasks, according to FRBR, are: to find, identify, select and access an entity. E. Svenonious

adds also the fifth task: to navigate. Only a part of those generic tasks are contained in

Croatian code (Objective 1 might correspond to 'find', Objective 2 and 3 to 'select' and

identify'), but tasks such as 'access' and 'navigate' should be incorporated in the new, updated

version of a code.

3.3.3. Levels of detail in the description

Croatian manualPPIAK does not recommend various levels of description as does its

American counterpartAACR2 (1.0D.). The description that Croatian manual sets as a standard

description corresponds more or less to the American second level of description. However,

6


although the Croatian manual does not offer various levels of description that does not mean

that Croatian libraries do not use fewer details in the description for certain types of material.

The only problem is that, without this being explicitly stated in the manual, the details

included in the library descriptions differ from library to library. Therefore in 1988 a new

publication on shorter cataloguing description was issued18. Still, Croatian libraries prefer

more detailed cataloguing records and majority of records in Croatian libraries correspond to

the Anglo-American second level of description.

Recommendation: Although RDA won't have AACR2's three levels of description but show

mandatory elements, it is still considered wise to include two levels of description (shorter

and full) for different types of materials (for instance, shorter for non-book material) in a new

Croatian manual. Namely, all ISBDs that have heavily been relied on in Croatian cataloguing

practice, have always included mandatory and optional elements of cataloguing description

and some Croatian libraries still have had problems with deciding when to include optional

elements in the description and when to leave them out. Putting those two levels of

description in the manual and stating which type of library material they are meant for would

hopefully help many of Croatian libraries, especially smaller ones. However, those levels of

description would be intended only as a recommendation and libraries would be able to

change and adopt the levels of description to their needs (e.g. library of a musical academy

would certainly their material fully, and not in a shortened form). Croatian code should follow

the American practice and prescribe various levels of description for different type of

materials.

3.3.4. Layout of the record

There are differences in the outlook of the record itself. Croatian manual prescribes the

following outlook (186/4):

ENTRY word with other heading words or phrases [Filing aid] Title and statement of responsibility. – Edition. – Publication, distribution, etc. – Physical description. – (Series)NoteStandard number and terms of availabilityTracing

7


The first word of the heading is typed in capital letters to emphasize the filing element

(which was lost when Croatian catalogs moved to electronic environment). This is useful in

situations when the record is entered under its title and the title begins with an article. The

article is not omitted from the description and although being the first word in the record, it is

not the entry element. Filing aid and Area 1 are typed under the 4th letter of the heading. All

the other lines start under the first word of the heading.

Anglo-American manual does not show the layout of the complete record, but only of

a descriptive part (1.0D1.-2.). The heading and the tracing elements are therefore added by the

author of this paper.

Heading [Uniform title] Title and statement of responsibility. – Edition. – Publication, distribution, etc. – Physical description. – (Series). – Note. – Standard number and terms of availability Tracing

The first noticeable difference is that Anglo-American manual does not prescribe

capitalization of the entry element. Also, the first line is slightly indented, which is similar to

the Croatian way. However, this is only implicit in the example of the record offered in the

manual, and since no explanation or instruction is given as to how to type the first line, it is

easy to overlook this minor detail19. The last difference is in alignment of Areas 7 (Notes) and

8 (Standard number and terms of availability). IFLA recommended that Area 7 be typed in

smaller font to distinguish it from the rest of the cataloguing record. The alternative was to

type it in a new line. Croatian code chose the latter option since it was the one followed by

ISBD family. Furthermore, the manual was created at a time when catalogue cards were typed

and it was impossible to produce smaller fonts on a typewriter. This custom is preserved

today in catalogues or bibliographies produced with the help of a computer even though it is

possible to use different font sizes (utilized in some cases; e.g. Croatian bibliography series20).

Recommendation: Croatian code need not change its layout.

3.3.54. Sources of information

One of the areas where it is obvious that Croatian code needs updating are sources of

information. Table 1 illustrates differences in Croatian and Anglo-American codes:

Table 1. Sources of information

8


Area PPIAK AACR2 for printed monographs

Title and statement of responsibility

Title page or its substitute Title page

Edition Title page Title page, other preliminaries, colophon

Publication, distribution, etc. Title page, other preliminaries, colophon

Title page, other preliminaries, colophon

Physical description The publication itself The whole publicationSeries Anywhere in publication Series title page,

monograph title page, cover, rest of publication

Note Any source Any sourceStandard number and terms of availability

Any source Any source

American codeAACR2 was updated regularly so that it incorporated changes in ISBD(M)21

whereas Croatian was not. The Edition area (marked in red) is the area where the changes

occurred. Series area (marked in green) differs slightly. Namely, AACR2 is more precise

giving the sources of information in the order of their importance, whereas PPIAK gives only

a very general 'Anywhere in publication'.

Recommendation: Update the sources of information for the Edition Area and state the order

of importance of sources of information for Series Area. .

3.3.65. Treatment of multipart works

Croatian code allows for two ways of description of multipart works, stand-alone and

multi-level. However, they are not interchangeable.

Multi-volume works can be described 'flat' as stand-alone structures only if following

criteria are met:

volumes differ only in volume designation and pagination (244/3)

volumes differ also in year of publication, distribution, etc. (244/4). However, a

multipart work whose parts were published in different years can be described as

stand-alone only if there are no more than two parts and the first part is issued

before the second.

volumes also have a different series numbering (244/5). In case of different series

numbering, there may be no more than three volumes and their series numbering

follows their volume designation. In other words, if volume three cannot have a

higher lower series number than volumes one or two, or volume two lower than

9


volume one. If volumes differ both in years of publication and have a different

series numbering, then there may only be two volumes for a stand-alone

description. Otherwise, a multi-level description must be applied.

and finally, volumes can also slightly differ in their titles (244/6). The differences

may refer to the content, language and/or script, spelling, orthography or may be

mere variations in a formulation of a title.

If those requirements are not met (e.g. if volumes also differ in illustrations – one is

illustrated, the other not) multi-level description is required. The most common type of a

multi-level description is a two-level description (245) but there may also be a multi-level

(three- or even four-level) description, but it is rare. We will concentrate on a two-level

description.

Two-level description is based on the division of the descriptive information into two levels.

The first level contains the information common to all parts. The second level contains the

information relating to the individual volume. Therefore, the record for the translation of

Tolkien's trilogy Lord of the Rings, looks like this in Croatian catalogues:

TOLKIEN, John Ronald ReuelGospodar prstenova / J. R. R. Tolkien ; [preveo s engleskog Zlatko Crnković ;

prepjev stihova Neven Antičević]. – Zagreb : Algoritam, 2005. – 3 sv. : ilustr. ; 24 cm Prijevod djela: Lord of the rings. ISBN 953-220-282-X (cjelina)Dio 1 : Prstenova družina. – 479 str. – (NAJbiblioteka : najbolje od Algoritma i Jutarnjeg lista ; 3) Prijevod djela: The fellowship of the rings. ISBN 953-220-279-XDio 2 : Dvije kule. – 399 str. – (NAJbiblioteka : najbolje od Jutarnjeg lista ; knj. 4) Prijevod djela: The two towers. Dio 3 : Povratak kralja. – 505 str. – (NAJbiblioteka : najbolje od Jutarnjeg lista ; knj. 5) Prijevod djela: The return of the king.

Croatian cataloguing practice is firmly based on ISBD(M), which is also reflected in the

approach to the description of multipart monographs.

Multi-level description is not common in American cataloguing practice. Although the

Code itself makes provision for a multilevel description (13.6A), it states that multilevel

description is normally used by national bibliographies and those cataloguing agencies that

prepare entries needing complete identification of both part and comprehensive whole in a

single record that shows as its primary element the description of the whole22. However, this

is one of the minor rules and in the Code the preference is given to a 'flat' description of

10


multipart works (2.5B17-2.5B243; 13.3; 21.2B2A1, 1.6G2). Therefore, one of the parts of

Tolkien's trilogy will be described in this way in American libraries:

Tolkien, J. R. R. (John Ronald Reuel), 1892-1973The two towers / J.R.R. Tolkien ; illustrated by Alan Lee. – Boston : Houghton,

Mifflin, 2002. – x p., p. 415-750 : col. ill., map ; 26 cm. – (Lord of the rings ; pt. 2). – ISBN: 0618260595.

It was noticed, however, that some Croatian libraries decided to treat this particular

trilogy as a finite series and describe the individual volumes of the trilogy in the same way

American libraries would - treating the title of the trilogy as the series title and the volume

designation as a series number. Doing this, they move away from Croatian cataloguing

practice and get closer to American. However, the described practice is more an anomaly than

a common practice.

Recommendation: Do not change the present practice. Two-level description (multi-level less

so) is widespread and common in Croatian cataloguing community, and users are used to

looking for information about multi-part works that is organized in such a way. It may be

argued that multi-level description requires more skill and cataloguer's time than one-level,

but we feel that it is worth investing more time and skill because one-level description is less

economic (repetition of common elements in each part description) and it takes more time for

the user to determine which parts go together and form the whole. With multi-level

description this is clear and unambiguous.

3.3.76. Headings

There are differences at the level of type and form of the headings between two codes. Table

2 illustrates those differences:

Table 2. Headings

Type of authorship PPIAK AACR2Persons Headings for persons Heading for personsCorporate bodies Headings for corporate

bodiesHeading for corporate bodies

Geographic entities Headings for corporate bodies

Geographic names

Legal publications Formal heading Geographic name + Uniform title

11

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Tolkien%2C%20J.%20R.%20R.%20(John%20Ronald%20Reuel)%2C%201892-1973.&PID=23646&BROWSE=1&HC=187&SID=2


Two main differences between the codes are highlighted.They regard geographic entities and

legislative enactments and decrees of political jurisdictions (laws, constitutions, etc.). In

effect, however, those differences are not significant, because with geographic entities the

difference is mainly in wording (Croatian code does not recognize Geographic names to be a

separate type of headings. Geographic entities therefore receive either corporate headings or,

in case of legal publications, so-called formal headings).

With legal publications there is a slight difference in terminology and layout. In Croatian code

legal publications receive formal headings which consist of two parts: name of the jurisdiction

and the uniform name for the type of a document (e.g. Laws, Constitution, etc.):

e. g. HRVATSKA. Zakoni23

The first part of the heading, the name of a jurisdiction, is written either in Croatian or in

vernacular. The choice between the two is determined according to the following: if a

jurisdiction is of a higher level (e.g. state), its name will be written in Croatian. If it is a lower-

level jurisdiction (e.g. federal state, town), the name is written in vernacular (157/1, 157/13).

The second part of the heading, the one that defines the type of a document, is always in

Croatian (172/1).

Anglo-American codeAACR2R prescribes the usage of Geographic name in combination

with Uniform title:

e.g. United States

[Laws, etc.]

As for the language, American codeAACR2R prescribes the usage of English forms in all

situations if they are in general use. The form in vernacular is used only if there is no English

form in general use (23.2A; 23.2B)

Although almost identical in approach, there is a bigger difference above mere terminological

one. For Croatian code the whole phrase is the heading (HRVATSKA. Zakoni), whereas for

American code the heading is only the Geographic name (United States). Both codes agree

that the name used for the government should be a conventional name e.g. geographic name

for the area over which the government exercises jurisdiction (Croatian code: 157/1 ;

American code: 24.3E1.)

Recommendation: We do not think that the change of current Croatian practice regarding the

form and type of heading would bring any significant progress. Differences here are minor

and Do not change the present practice.it is our recommendation that Croatian practice

remains the same.

12


3.3.76.1. Choice of access points

3.3.67.1.1. Works of mixed responsibility

Croatian PPIAK and American codes AACR2R seem to differ partly in treatment of

works of mixed responsibility. Whereas they agree on treatment of previously existing works

that have been modified, they differ slightly when it comes to new works to which different

persons or bodies have made different kinds of contributions. General rule in Croatian code

(25/1) prescribes that the author of a new work (the one in the main entry) is person or

corporate body whose contribution in the creation of the new work is considered to be the

most significant (e.g. more comprehensive in physical sense). Only when the contributions are

considered to be of equal importance e.g. length, the author is considered to be the person

named first in the chief source of information (25/2). Consequently, if the work is a result of

collaboration of an artist and a writer, the most important criterion for the determination of the

main author is the percentage of contribution. Publications with more reproductions of art

material, and less text will be entered under the name of the artist, and for the writer an added

entry will be made (26/1); publications with more text and fewer reproductions of art material

will be entered under the name of the writer, whereas the artist will be in the added entry

(26/2), regardless which name occurs first in the chief source of information. This formal

factor, the order of the names in the chief source of information, becomes significant only

when the publication contains contributions that are 'equally important' e.g. cover

approximately the same percentage of the publication. In that case, the publication is entered

under the name that appears first in the chief source of information, and the other person gets

an added entry (26/3). In the case of contributions of an approximately equal length

cataloguer is not considered to be qualified enough to make a decision whose contribution is

more significant, and the formal approach is deemed more appropriate.

That is somewhat in contrast with American codeAACR2R that, for the works of

collaboration between an artist and a writer, instructs the choice of first named person in the

chief source of information unless one person is given greater prominence by the wording or

the layout (21.24).

The two codes seem to approach the issue of mixed responsibility in new works when

it comes to collaboration between an artist and a writer from two different angles. Croatian

code is more interested in authorship (therefore the responsibility), which is also obvious from

the terminology of the code that constantly uses the word 'author', whereas the American is

rather formal in its approach and the decision on the main entry (the code does not mention

13


the issue of authorship) seems to be arbitrary and entirely accidental (depending on which

name the publisher decided to put first on the title page). This also means that Croatian

cataloguers require more time for such a decision which, some may argue, is somewhat

subjective (although the formal criterion is present – namely, the physical scope of the

contribution) and different decisions on the main entry might be made. On the other hand,

alphabetical catalogue, as Croatian code understands it, is about authorship and it is obvious

that the code is aware of the possible threat to informed decisions on the authorship and in

cases that could result in different solutions prescribes a purely formal approach.

Interestingly enough, the American AACR2R code changes its approach when it

comes to reports of interviews or exchanges. Those publications are entered either under the

name of the person(s) interviewed or under the name of the reporter. If the report is essentially

confined to the words of the person interviewed it is entered under this person (21.25A); if it

is, on the other hand, to a considerable extent in the words of the reporter, it will be entered

under the reporter's name (21.25B). The rules make provisions for added entries as well, but

the important thing here is that there is no mention of the 'first named person in the chief

source of information', quite the contrary, it applies the same rule Croatian code uses for

works resulting from the collaboration between an artist and a writer. It is unclear why the

American AACR2R code does not pursue its formal approach and apply the rule of 'first

named' in situations of mixed responsibility. Switching between approaches is rather

confusing and does not give the impression of clear ideas on what an alphabetical catalog

needs to do in the first place: be an inventory list and identify the publication or identify the

author and collocate his/her works. Either objective is fine, but it is the switching between the

approaches within the same section of the Code that is puzzling.

Croatian code instructs that the interview be entered under the name of the person who

conducts the interview and gives it a literary form (29/1) because it is considered that this

person's contribution is more significant than that of the other person. If this cannot be

determined, the interview is entered under the first named person in the chief source of

information. Added entries are made for the other persons mentioned in the chief source of

information.

Actually, Croatian rule on this topic is unclear and ambiguous. Croatian librarians sometimes

have not been satisfied with this rather formal rule especially in situaitons when they felt that

the interviewee's contribution was more significant than that of the interviewer's and have

therefore for years been borrowing the explanation from the American codeAACR2R and

14


used that as a criterion to decide whether a reporter or a person interviewed is the main

author.

Recommendation: In general, stick to the present practice when it comes to works of mixed

responsibilty. When it comes to reports of interviews or exchanges Croatian code should be

modified according to the American practice.

3.3.76.2. Headings for persons

3.3.76.2.1. Compound surnames

Croatian code needs updating in the rule that deals with compound surnames of

Croatian female authors. General rule specifies to treat the compound surnames according to

the customs of the country of origination of the author (92/1). It continues with the instruction

to enter the hyphenated compound surname under the first element (92/2). In that it agrees

with the American codeAACR2R which instructs the same (22.5C43.). However, not all

compound names are hyphenated. In that case, Croatian code instructs in rule 94/4 to enter

those names under the first element. This rule is applied on compound names originating from

Yugoslavia (among many other countries). Since the Code does not specify how to treat

compound surnames of Croatian female writers they are always treated according to rule 94/4

e.g. entered under the first element of the compound surname (and from the other element a

'see' reference is made). While this procedure may have been correct in the past when the

custom was to insert a husband's surname between the woman's name and her maiden

surname, this custom has changed. Therefore the personal heading for the Croatian writer

Ivana Brlić Mažuranić (1874-1938) 24 created according to the rule 94/4 looks like this:

BRLIĆ Mažuranić, Ivana ('See' reference created from Mažuranić)

This is perfectly correct because the author's maiden surname is Mažuranić and the entry

element is a husband's surname. However, the obstinate adhering to this rule at the time when

the tradition has changed creates solutions like this one:

SABLIĆ Tomić, Helena ('See' reference created from Tomić)

Helena Sablić Tomić is a contemporary author and Sablić is her maiden surname. And in the

case where her husband's surname, Tomić, should be the entry element, it is not. And this is

true for all other contemporary Croatian female authors with compound surnames.

This tradition of attaching a husband's surname to the existing name of a married author is

present in many cultures and Croatian code recognizes that. Rule 93/2a specifies that female

married authors with compound names coming from South Africa, Canada and US should be

15


entered under the second element (the first surname is actually treated as a middle name!).

Accordingly, the heading for Harriet Beecher Stowe (where Beecher is the author's maiden

name) looks like this:

STOWE, Harriet Beecher

A 'See' reference is created for the first element e.g. for Beecher.

Obviously, the problem described here is not the question of the approach but of updating and

adjusting the code to the contemporary practice.

American codeAACR2R, on the other hand, is quite contemporary in the treatment of

compound surnames of female authors. It instructs to enter the work under the first element of

the compound name only if the female author's language is Czech, French, Hungarian, Italian,

or Spanish. In all other cases (e.g. including Croatian language) it instructs to enter under the

husband's name (22.5C5.)

Recommendation: Update the Croatian codeIt is situations like this when it becomes obvious

how outdated Croatian manual is. .It should describe the current Croatian practice, but it does

not. Therefore this rule must change to reflect the present practice of forming the compound

surnames of Croatian female writers.

3.3.76.2.2. Entry under the title of nobility

Some differences between the codes can also be detected when it comes to titles of

nobilities. General rule in Croatian code (94/1) specifies entering under the form of the name

the person is commonly known of, which is more or less the same as in American

codeAACR2R (22.6A1.). However, Croatian code has some limitations. Rule 94/3 prohibits,

for instance, the usage of titles of nobility for Scandinavian and Slav authors.

Leo Tolstoy will be therefore entered differently in American and Croatian code:

Tolstoy, Leo, graf (AACR2)

TOLSTOJ, Lev Nikolaevič (PPIAK)

As can be seen, apart from differences in Romanization, Croatian heading for the same

Russian author does not include his title of nobility. Croatian code seems to follow Russian

cataloguing practice25:

Tolstoj, Lev Nikolaevič Russian National Library).

The same rule also mentions that the title of nobility is often omitted with Austrian, German

and Italian authors but does not go into details. Obviously, the choice on this matter depends

on how those authors are treated by the cataloguing centers in their countries of origin.

16


Furthermore, the same rule in Croatian code instructs to omit terms of honor (e.g. Sir, Lord,

Lady in Great Britain or Baron, Baronin, Baronesse in German, previously known as Freiherr,

Freifrau or Freiin)

e.g. Scott, Walter, Sir (AACR2) Scott, Walter (PPIAK)Recommendation: Do not change the present practice.

3.3.76.2.3. Contemporary authors and pseudonyms

In general, both codes agree that, if a person is known by more than one name, the

name by which the person is most commonly known, should be used as the main entry for

that author (22.2A1. AACR2; 96/1, 3 PPIAK).

However, Croatian code does not distinguish between contemporary authors and the

others that are not. If the author uses several pseudonyms, or the real name and several

pseudonyms, or is better known by his/her real name than by the pseudonyms, the main entry

for this author becomes his/her real name, even if it is a contemporary author. The other

names are treated as variant names (96/3).

American codeAACR2R, on the other hand, specifies that in a case when a

contemporary author uses more than one pseudonym or his or her real name and one or more

pseudonyms the basis for the heading for each work is the name appearing on it (22.2B3.).

This disparity is illustrated by the case of Ruth Rendell, a contemporary British author

who also writes under the pseudonym of Barbara Vine. In the OPAC of Croatian National and

University Library all the author's works are entered under her real name e.g. main entry

RENDELL, Ruth following the instruction of rule 96/3. Library of Congress, however,

established entries for both names since Rendell is a contemporary author.

The logic of the American code is somewhat more legitimate than that of Croatian

because with contemporary authors it is uncertain under which name this particular author

will be in general known and refered to in reference works.

Recommendation: Change the code to reflect the American practice when it comes to

contemporary authors and pseudonyms.

3.3.76.2.4. Names in vernacular and Greek or Latin forms

Croatian code specifies (rules 102, 103 and 104) that old Greek and Roman authors be

entered in Latin form of the name. A 'See' reference is created for the form of the name in the

vernacular26.

17


The American codeAACR2R instructs differently. If a name occurs in reference

sources and/or in the person’s works in a Greek or Latin form as well as in a form in the

person’s vernacular, the form most commonly found in reference sources should be chosen

(22.3B2.). If it is not clear which name is predominant, persons who were active before, or

mostly before, A.D. 1400 are entered under the Latin or Greek form. Persons active after that

date, are entered under the vernacular form (22.3B2.). Furthermore, for the authors entered

1C. A. Cutter, Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalog, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1904).2 (FRBR Final Report 1998) IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records.

1998. Functional requirements for bibliographic records: final report ( München: K. G. Saur, 1998). Also

available online at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf and at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm

(retrieved on December 10th, 2006).3 Thomas Hyde's descriptions in the17th century Bodleaian Library catalogue were aimed specifically at

identification of the work contained in a publication, and not the publication itself. This is demonstrated by his

callous treatment of titles, which he often shortened or rephrased. Furthermore, in descriptions of additional

editions of the previously described publication, Hyde would, instead of the full description, insert merely a

phrase 'Same with illustrations' or 'Same in English'. Patrons would therefore be able to find the work, but not to

identify with certainty the publication the work was contained in. 4 Since the political system of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was extremely complex, the majority of regulations

and guidelines that were followed in Croatia's libraries came from Vienna, and only a very small proportion

originated from Zagreb. A certain number of issues was regulated by Civil Governor's orders and had a legal

power. Although Croatia was one of St. Stephen's Crown countries, it did not choose Hungarian laws and

regulations when it came to education and librarianship but preferred those from a more modern, Austrian part of

the Kingdom. Students from Croatia and Slavonia only rarely went to Universities in Hungary and they mostly

studied at prominent Universities in Austria or Germany. Those facts determined also the direction of the

Croatian librarianship. D. Sečić, Kraljevska sveučilišna knjižnica u Zagrebu: razvoj i djelovanje srednjoeuropske

knjižnice od 1874. do 1918. [Royal University Library in Zagreb: development and activities of the Middle-

European library in the period between 1874 and 1918] (unpublished manuscript) 5 E. Verona, Pravilnik i priručnik za izradbu abecednih kataloga (Zagreb: Hrvatsko bibliotekarsko društvo,

1983-1986). 6 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1943-1991/2001) was formed during the World War II (although

under a different name at the time) and disintegrated following the Yugoslav Wars (1991-2001). It consisted of

six socialist republics: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. Croatia

became an independent state in 1991. 7 Verona, Pravilnik, vol. 1, 7.8 Eva Verona (1905-1996) the most eminent Croatian librarian, best known for her work in the area of

cataloguing. She was born in Trieste (then Austro-Hungarian Empire) and graduated in mathematics and physics

18

http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm

http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf


under given name or for Romans of classical times the preferred form of the name is English

form well established in English reference sources (22.3B3; 22.8; 22.9A).

Examples:

Homer (AACR2; English form)

HOMERUS (PPIAK; Latin form)

Ovid (AACR2; English form)

OVIDIUS Naso, Publius (PPIAK; Latin form)

but:

from Zagreb University and was immediately employed in the National and University Library in Zagreb. From

1948 to 1959 she was working on collecting the data about cultural heritage taken out of Croatia during the

World Wars I and II and received an award for that activity in 1961. She also played an important role in the

International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in Paris in 1961. Subsequently, she worked in several IFLA

Working Groups, participated in creating bibliographical standards and descriptions for numerous kinds of

library materials. After she had retired from her work in the National Library in 1967 she worked as a professor

at the University in Zagreb for students of library science. 9 It was decided that the draft of the code would be issued successively, after the work on each section was

completed. 10 Verona. Pravilnik, vol. 1, 8.11 ISBD(M): International Standard Bibliographic Description for monographic publications. 1st standard ed.

London : IFLA, 1974. 12 ISBD(M): International Standard Bibliographic Description for monographic publications. 1st standard ed.

revised (London : IFLA, 1978). Croatian translation 1980. 13 The terms used in the code are actually bibliographic and literary unit and Verona explains them fully in her

article: E. Verona, "Literary unit versus bibliographical unit", in Libri 9, 2-3(1959): 79-104.14 In 2005 the Voyager Library Management Software System was purchased for the purposes of the National

and University Library in Zagreb as well as other academic libraries within the area of higher education and

science. At the moment, the system is implemented at the level of the National and University Library. See

Izvješće o radu na implementaciji knjižničnog softvera Voyager u NSK i knjižnicama u sustavu znanosti i visokog

obrazovanja [Implementation of Voyager Library Management Software System in National and University

Library and libraries within science and higher education system: report] (Zagreb, September 2006).

Retrieved on November 16, 2006 from: http://www.nsk.hr/UserFiles/File/dokumenti/voyagerdoc/IZVJE

%C5%A0TAJ%20O%20UVO%C4%90ENJU%20VOYAGERA%20U%20NSK%202.doc.

However, Voyager incorporates MARC21 and Anglo-American cataloguing rules, whereas the majority of

Croatian libraries still uses CROLIST, the library system developed by the National and University Library and

the company UNIBIS, based on UNIMARC and Eva Verona's Manual. Hence the dilemma which path to pursue

in revision of the Manual. 15 In UNIMARC the authority tags are in the number range of 7xx. Normally, cataloguers work their way

through the description following the logical numerical flow of the tags (e.g. starting with 100 which represents

coded information). In MARC21 the authority tag is 100, which puts it at the beginning of the description, but in

19

http://www.nsk.hr/UserFiles/File/dokumenti/voyagerdoc/IZVJE%C5%A0TAJ%20O%20UVO%C4%90ENJU%20VOYAGERA%20U%20NSK%202.doc

http://www.nsk.hr/UserFiles/File/dokumenti/voyagerdoc/IZVJE%C5%A0TAJ%20O%20UVO%C4%90ENJU%20VOYAGERA%20U%20NSK%202.doc


Aeschylus (AACR2; Latin form)

AESCHYLUS (PPIAK; Latin form)

Recommendation: Change the rule. Old Greek and Roman authors should be entered in

vernacular because this is the form of name users look under for those authors. This is the

form of name those authors are identified with on the title pages or in most reference works

and most users are unfamiliar with the Latin or Greek form of their name. with A mandatory

'See' reference from the Latin or Greek form of their name should be created..

3.3.76.3. Headings for corporate bodies

3.3.76.3.1. Addition to the name

the electronic environment and MARC21 template this can be easily skipped postponing the decision of the

choice of the author, as well as the additional access points, for the very end of the description process. 16 Verona, Pravilnik, vol. 1, 13. 17 RDA. Part I – Draft for constituency review (December 2005), 0.1-218 Priručnik za skraćeni kataložni zapis [Manual for a shorter cataloguing description]. Priredila Dorica

Blažević ( Zagreb : Hrvatsko bibliotekarsko društvo, 1988). 19 The author had the opportunity to listen to cataloguing classes at one of American Universities and the practice

shown there did not indicate the difference in line alignment within the record. 20 Accessible at http://www.nsk.hr/bibliografije/niza.html (Retrieved at Nov 20, 2006)21 However, there is a slight variation in the sources of information for Series area between ISBD(M) and Anglo-

American code. ISBD(M) states: Title page, other preliminaries, cover, spine, and colophon. See: ISBD(M):

International Standard Bibliographic Description for Monographic Publications. 2002 rev. Recommended by

the ISBD Review Group. Approved by the Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Cataloguing. P. 13. 22 One of the American libraries that creates a multi-level description for multipart items is the New York Public

Library. 23 CROATIA. Laws24 Croatian children's writer 25 Namely, Croatian code insists on treating the author names accordingly to the practice of the country the

authors originate from. Apparently, Slav and Scandinavian countries do not include the title of nobility in the

heading and Croatian code follows their practice. 26 At the International conference organized to mark a centenary of Eva Verona's birth (Zagreb, November 17-18

2005) Dorica Blažević, a cataloguer from the National and University Library in Zagreb, presented the new ideas

and the practice exercised in the Library. One of them was the motion to enter the names of old Greek and

Roman authors in vernacular, with a 'See' reference from the Latin counterpart of their name. The idea was

received with reservation and it was obvious that Croatian cataloguers were not ready to change the cataloguing

tradition. However, it is our belief that the reason for such a cold reception of that idea was a basic human urge

to resist to changes, and has no real professional arguments that would disprove it.

20

http://www.nsk.hr/bibliografije/niza.html


Croatian code specifies addition of a location to the name of every corporate body

with permanent address (139/1). The name of the location is always in original language. The

American codeAACR2R does not require that addition unless there are two or more corporate

bodies with the same or similar name (24.4C.). Therefore, Library of Congress will be entered

slightly differently in OPACs of American and Croatian libraries:

Library of Congress (AACR2)

LIBRARY of Congress (Washington, D.C.) (PPIAK)

Recommendation: We suggest to keep the present practice. In our opinion, it is not a huge

burdain on the cataloguer to find the location of the corporate body and it adds to uniformity

of headings for corporate bodies. Keep the addition of a location.

3.3.76.3.2. Conferences, congresses, meetings, etc. identified by a name

Croatian code specifies that a certain event (conference, meeting, exhibition, etc.) can

be assumed to be a corporate author and therefore assigned a corporate heading under the

condition it has a specific name (8/1,2). However, the Code fails to define what is considered

to be a 'specific name'. Instead, it offers a negative definition and specifies what is NOT

considered to be a specific name (8/3). In other words, it is not a specific name if the meeting

name consists only of:

a) generic words that describe the type of the meeting (e.g. Working group)

b) generic words for the type of the meeting and a location (e.g. Colloque de Toulouse)

c) lack of grammatical connection between the generic words for the type of the meeting

and the topic (feature inherent to Croatian language)

d) generic words for the type of the meeting and the name of one or more corporate

bodies where it is obvious that they function solely as organizers and/or sponsors of

the meeting (e.g. Colloque organisé par l'Association française des sciences politiques

et de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques)

This lack of clear and unambiguous definition has been the source of confusion among

Croatian cataloguers for years. Especially problematic is the rule 8/3c in cases when all the

elements necessary to identify a meeting or an event are present, but are not grammatically

connected and should, according to the rule, be treated as anonymous and entered under the

title (main entry). In such a case an added entry for the corporate name of the meeting is

obligatory. An added entry for a corporate body that organizes the meeting is also created, as

long as it is mentioned in the chief source of information (41a). In practice, however, many

21


Croatian cataloguers often decide to disregard rule 8/3a and enter the publication under the

corporate name for the event. On the other hand, those that decide to follow the rules, will

create a different heading (namely, to enter the publication under its title). Hence, different

solutions for the same item can often be found. The problem gets further complicated when

this happens within the same library (!)

American codeAACR2R, on the other hand, does not even try to complicatetries to

simplify this whole situation and defines what is considered to be a meeting name. Its only

concern is that the conference, expedition, or event is NAMED in the item (21.1B2d). This is

obviously a more elegant solution because it hopefully would ends up in more unanimous

decisions on whether a conference is the author or not (although, even in the States there are

different solutions by different cataloguers) . Still, it is our impression that inIn Croatian case,

the decision-making process when it comes to corporate headings for meetings, conferences,

events, etc. is a rathermore complicated process than in American case and results more often

in different solutions. and often results in different solutions.

Recommendation: In order to reduce ambiguity and different solutions change the code to

reflect the American practice. we should rewrite this rule. The negative definition must be

removed and in its place inserted a clear definition with much more examples than can

currently be found in the manual.

3.3.87. Uniform titles

In the introduction of PPIAK Verona states that the functions of the catalogue are

often in conflict27. The same work may have various expressions and manifestations whose

titles may vary and one catalog entry is not enough; added entries are necessary in order to

fulfill the objectives of the catalog (as already mentioned, Croatian code was created

primarily for card catalogues).

Therefore, according to Verona, in an alphabetical catalogue each item should be described

by28:

main entry containing the complete bibliographic description. The title

proper is provided after the heading for a person or formal heading;

added entry with heading for a person or formal heading and uniform title if

different from title proper;

27 Verona, Pravilnik, vol 1, 13-16. 28 Verona, Pravilnik, vol. 1, 16.

22


as many added entries, analytical added entries, (or see and see also references), as

is necessary to facilitate all

facilitating the finding of the item;

collective entry for the series to which the item belongs.

In the introduction Verona expresses the view that in an alphabetical catalogue patrons tend to

either look for specific items (Objective 1), or search for all works by an author (Objective 3).

That is why PPIAK tends to focus in its rules more on fulfillment of those two objectives, and

is slightly less interested in collocating all expressions and manifestations of the same work

(Objective 2). As a result of such an approach, the collocation by uniform titles seems to be of

secondary importance and added entries may be provided (but are not mandatory). Actually,

uniform titles are mandatory only in the case of anonymous classics (17). Although Verona

recommends added entries under uniform titles for works that have been published in many

editions and/or translations (17/1-3), Croatian cataloguing practice did not follow that

recommendation. Neither did Slovenian, for that matter29. Therefore, the translation is entered

under the title of a translation, and the title of the original is provided only in a note area. It is

never used as a uniform title to collocate all the manifestations of the same work. The only

widely accepted practice is to assign conventional titles for a number of works, originally

published under long titles in archaic spelling and grammar, that are in reference works

usually referred to under a much shorter conventional title (e.g. Hamlet) (17/3).

Although Croatian code mentions creating collective entries for the series to which the items

belong in its introductory section, later it does not really also does not make provisions for

series uniform titles. Collective entries for series became common in Croatian catalogues with

the emergence of electronic catalogues, however, no uniform titles were used again so, when

a 'collective entry' had conflicts, series tracings had those conflicts, too.

American codeAACR2R, on the other hand, is obviously geared toward collocating all

the expressions and manifestations of the same work (the whole chapter 25 is dedicated to

uniform titles). Although some American libraries did not use uniform titles in their

cataloguing practice, many did and this might particularly come in handy in future when

libraries try to conform to the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR).

Namely, catalogues that utilized uniform titles will be able to identify entities at the first,

work, level without much additional work. Whereas in those other catalogues without uniform

29 Z. Dimec; M. Žumer; G. J. A. Riesthuis, 2005." Slovenian Cataloguing Practice and Functional Requirements

for Bibliographic Records: a Comparative Analysis", in Cataloguing & Classification Quarterly 39, no. 3-4

(2005): 213.

23

Sveučilište J. J. Strossmayera u Osijeku, 05.04.07,

Although there was a reviewer's comment regarding this statement, I cannot change this a lot because this is taken from E. Verona.In case my translation caused problems I tried to rewrite it to be as close to Verona's wording in Croatian as possible.


titles this would probably create a problem and the lack of uniform titles might require manual

interventions in the catalogue.

Recommendation: Start using uniform titles on a regular basis. This would ensure the

uniformity, collocate the manifestations of the same work and make sure the catalog can meet

the FRBR requirements.

3.3.8. DescriptionSome differences in the description between the codes are the result of the three levels

of description suggested by American codeAACR2R. But they are minor and strictly

connected with the number of elements included in the description.

Title and Statement of Responsibility Area

In the Title and statement of responsibility area Croatian code makes provisions for

names of meetings, conferences, events, etc. (193/28). In this respect, the code attempts to be

as thorough as possible and describe all the possible problems cataloguers might encounter in

their work30. The provisions are given for following situations:

meeting with a specific name (193/Aa-j);

subordinate meeting (requires the name of the corporate body organizing the

meeting to identify it) (193/Ba-f);

publication does not contain enough elements to identify the meeting (193/C);

graphical layout of the title proper is ambiguous and it cannot be determined with

certainty whether it is a meeting with a specific name, subordinate meeting, or a

meeting without a specific name (193/D);

publication contains two synonymous names or two names, one of which refers to

a narrower topic of a meeting, and the other one to the generic name of the

conference (193/Ea-i);

publication contains proceedings of several meetings (193/F);

expeditions, festivals, cultural, sporting events, expeditions (193/G).

American codeAACR2R, on the other hand, does not seem to pay too much attention to

meetings and meeting names. There are some examples that deal with meetings, conferences,

30 How important this section is can further be evidenced by the extent of the provisions for this particular type of

publications. Pages between 110-143 are dedicated only to the examples of various situations connected with

meetings and meeting names.

24


events, etc. in 1.1. and 2.1. but are not singled out and dealt with separately as in Croatian

code.

Recommendation: Although Verona intended to help cataloguers by including and describing

every possible bibliographic situation concerning meetings and conferences, it is our position

that this segment should be shortened and somewhat simplified because, due to its complex

nature, it actually does not help as much as it should.

Publication, Distribution, etc., Area

The next noticeable difference is in Publication, distribution, etc. area. In cases when a

publisher, distributor, etc. has offices in two places Croatian code instructs to include both in

the description (206/7). If the publisher, distributor, etc. has offices in three or more places,

the procedure is governed by rules 206/8 and 206/9 depending whether the Yugoslav (i.e.

Croatian)31 or foreign publication is described. In case of a publication issued in the home

country and three or more places of publication, distribution, etc. named in the item, all places

will be entered into the description providing they are found all together in the item. If they

are printed separately on various places in the item, only those places named on the title page

(or its substitute) are entered in the description (206/8). In the case of a foreign publication

with three or more places of publication, distribution, etc., only one place is included in the

description. The preference is given to a place name that is given prominence by the layout or

typography, or to the first named, if no prominence is given. Places omitted are replaced by

abbreviation [etc.] (206/9).

American codeAACR2R does not go so much into details. If two or more places are

named in the item, only the first named place is included in the description. Also, any

subsequently named place that is given prominence by the layout or typography is included as

well. If the first named place and any place given prominence are not in the home country of

the cataloguing agency, also the first of any subsequently named places that is in the home

country is included. All other places are omitted (1.4C5.)

This means that the same item might have different places entered in Publication, distribution,

etc. area regarding whether it was described by Croatian or American cataloguing agency. For

31 In the light of recent political changes and disintegration of Yugoslavia, only publications published before

1991 (when Croatia became an independent country) are described according to this rule. All publications

published after 1991 in any of republics of former Yugoslavia are treated as foreign publications and only those

published in Croatia are subject to rule 206/8.

25


example, a publication naming three places of publication (London, Toronto, New York)

with Toronto having been given prominence will be catalogued in the following ways:

. – Toronto [etc.] (PPIAK; only the place given prominence is included)

. – London ; Toronto ; New York (AACR2R; London is the first named place, Toronto is given prominence and New York is the first place in the home country of the cataloguing agency )

Codes differ also in treatment of several publishers named in the item. Croatian code

again gives different provisions for items published in the home country and items published

abroad. If the item is published in the home country of the cataloguing agency, both

publishers (and corresponding places) are included in the description. If the item is published

abroad, only the publisher named on the title page is included in the description (if both are

named, than both are included) (207/20). Similarly as with places of publication, PPIAK

instructs to include all publishers (and their respective places of publication), regardless of

their number, of a Yugoslav (i.e. Croatian) item in the description, providing they are all

found in the same source of information. If they are printed separately, only those named on

the title page should be included (207/21). With foreign publications only one, prominently

named, publisher is included in the description. If no publisher is given prominence, than the

first named publisher is taken. The other publishers are replaced by the abbreviation [etc.]

(207/22).

In the American case the item is described in terms of first named publisher (out of

two or more) and the corresponding place(s). Subsequently named publishers and their

corresponding places are added again in case of prominence or the publisher in the home

country of the cataloguing agency (1.4D4.).

If we take the previous example and change it a little bit (item with three publishers:

Longman from London, McClelland and Stewart from Toronto, and Dutton from New

York; with prominence given to the second named publisher) it will result in following

cataloguing solutions:

. – Toronto [etc.] : McClelland and Stewart [etc.] (PPIAK)

. – London : Longman ; Toronto : McClelland and Stewart ; New York : Dutton (AACR2)

In the case when a publisher named itself after a prominent physical person Croatian

code instructs to put the publisher's name in quotation marks (207/11)

e.g. . – Trieste : "Italo Svevo"

26


This is used to distinguish between publishing houses named after their owners. In that case

the proper name of an individual publisher is recorded in an abbreviated form, without

quotation marks (207/13). In addition, all titles (academic, nobility, etc.) are omitted.

e.g. . – London : I. Pitman & SonsSource of information reads: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd.

In American codeAACR2R no similar instruction regarding distinction between these two

situations was found, although it gives a provision to give the name of the publisher in the

shortest form in which it can be understood and identified internationally (1.4D2.)

(corresponding rule in PPIAK: 207/5). It might be concluded that an American cataloguer

would try to copy the data found on the prescribed source of information without any

additional interventions and considerations whether the quotation marks, or any abbreviations

are needed or not. The question remains how our previous example would be described in an

American libraryOur previous example would therefore described as follows:

. – London : Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons (?)

or

. – London : I. Pitman & Sons (?)

Recommendations: Croatian code is again too meticulous and gives too many rules and this

might be a segment which could be simplified. Here, PPIAK Croatian code has a separate rule

for a situation where two places/publishers are mentioned and when three or more are

mentioned. For the sake of simplification it would be prudent to get away with the rule of two

which instructs to include them all. American rule should that says "If two or more places are

named in the item, only the first named place is included in the description" should be taken.

Since PPIAK was never concerned about adding a place and/or publisher in the home country

if it is not the first place/publisher mentioned as AACR2R was, this rule does not need to be

included in PPIAK.

Series Area

Croatian code gives very precise instructions how to record several series names that

the item belongs to. Provisions are given for following situations (226/2):

item belongs to both finite and non-finite series. Finite is always recorded first.

item belongs to several series of the same kind (several finite or several non-finite

series). The series whose name is the closest to the topic discussed in the item is

recorded first.

e.g. . – (Politische Schriften / Thomas Mann ; 3) (Moderne Klassiker ; 118)

27


American codeAACR2R is again less specific. If an item belongs to two or more

series and/or two or more series and subseries, rule 1.6J1. instructs to make separate series

statements and enclose each statement in parentheses. It does not, however, go into detail

explaining which is to be given first. It may be concluded that the information is to be copied

literally from the source of information, but very often the information about different series

is found in different places in the item. Is this then governed by the importance of sources of

information? Or is the order of series entirely arbitrary?

Example:

e.g. (Video marvels ; no. 33) (Educational progress series ; no. 3)

The example found in AACR2 follows the Croatian reasoning – the first series (Video

marvels) is narrower in meaning and gives us more information about the nature of the topic

of the item than the second (Educational progress series), more general one. However, this is

completely implicit and only a well-experienced and versed cataloguer might get that finesse.

Recommendation: Do not change the present practicePPIAK gives a very pricise and specific

instruction how to record several series names that the record belongs to and it is our position

that it should not be changed.. AACR2R is not specific enough in its rules and although the

example given in AACR2R follows the rules spelled out in Croatian code we feel that it is

good to keep the rules and not leave it to the cataloguers to draw their own conclusions about

which series goes first.

Note Area

In general, apart from some minor punctuation differences, Croatian code does not put

as much stress on bibliographic history of the item, as does the American codeAACR2R.

There are provisions for the description of the particular edition (235) and bibliographic

history of the item (236), however, they are rarely included in the description. The records in

the catalogues of Croatian libraries therefore rarely give information about the bibliographic

history of the work, unless it is the case of a facsimile (236/8). On the other hand, the items

described according to stipulations of AACR2 regularly include information about the history

of the item (1.7B7, 2.7B7):

A very significant note in Croatian code, on the other hand, is the note about the

translated or modified works (228/1-16) which instructs to include the original title and/or the

title of the work that was modified. According to some, tThe usage of uniform titles make this

note redundant in the American cataloguing practice, although a rule is provided in the code

(1.7B2; 2.7B2).

28


Both cataloguing practices seem to put the same amount of value to the contents of the

item (e.g. bibliographies, indices, etc.) (1.7B18, 2.7B18 – AACR2; 239/1-6, 240/1-11 –

PPIAK).

Recommendation: If Croatian cataloguing community started using uniform titles on a regular

basis, the note on translations and modifications would become obsolete. Also, bibliographic

history of the item should be included in the description on a regular basis in order to comply

with FRBR recommedations.

3.3.9. Added entriesBoth cataloguing codes restrict the use of added entries even for primary authors: if

more than three primary authors are listed in a publication, an added entry is required

only for the first author (PPIAK – 12; AACR2 – 21.30A1). Croatian code, however, allows

creation of as many added entries as deemed necessary (significance of the authors, patron

needs), but this is rarely utilized.

Croatian code requires provision of even less information on secondary authors

(editors, illustrators, translators, etc.); for those, added entries are given only exceptionally.

For example, in the case of an anonymous publication with several editors named in the chief

source of information, the added entry is required only for one of them (Editor-in-Chief or the

first named) (33/2). The same rule is applied on editors of publications with corporate (33/4)

or formal headings (69/3). In American codeAACR2R, if the main entry is under the heading

for a corporate body or under a title, added entries should be made under the headings for

collaborating persons if there are not more than three, or under the heading for the first named

of four or more 21.30B1.).

Added entries are rarely provided for translators in Croatian code. The common situations

when an added entry should be provided:

translation of an anonymous work; translator mentioned on title page (32/1)

translator mentioned on title page of a legal publication (main entry under the

formal heading). If there are more translators, the added entry is provided only for

the first named (69/8).

Exceptional situations (32/1):

translation has a significance for cultural heritage. However, this is rather vague

and unclear.

title page names only translator

29


translator's name is given such a prominence on title page that it is certain that the

publication will be entered in the catalogue under that name, as well.

American codeAACR2R, similarly, requires added entries for translators if the main entry is

under the heading for a corporate body or under title (21.30K1.). However, this rule does not

specify the position of translator's name as does Croatian code. If the main entry is under the

heading for a person, an added entry should be made under the heading for a translator if

(21.30K1.):

the translation is in verse (PPIAK does not stipulate!)

the translation is important in its own right (might correspond to 'cultural heritage'

rule of PPIAK)

the work has been translated into the same language more than once (PPIAK does

not stipulate!)

the wording of the chief source of information of the item being catalogued

implies that the translator is the author (corresponds to PPIAK)

the main entry heading may be difficult for catalogue users to find (e.g., as with

many oriental and medieval works) (PPIAK does not stipulate!).

According to Croatian code, illustrators are assigned added entries if they supplied technical

drawings for a publication or illustrated a picture book, and the publication is not entered

under their name (26/5). In the case of other illustrated publications, the illustrator gets an

added entry only if the main entry is under the title (i.e. anonymous publication) and the

illustrator is given prominence on the title page, or in case when illustrations are at the same

time significant works of art important in their own right (26/6).

American codeAACR2R stipulates added entries for illustrators in the following situations

(21.30K2.):

the illustrator’s name is given equal or greater prominence in the chief source of

information of the item being catalogued to that of the person or corporate body

named in the main entry heading

the illustrations occupy half or more of the item

the illustrations are considered to be an important feature of the work.

Although these rules do not mention picture books, Library of Congress interpretation of this

rule instructs to make an added entry for all resources intended for children.

Recommedation: In general, Croatian code, being created with the card catalogue in mind,

instructs to include fewer added entries than the American. This should be changed in order to

allow the high assessibility of the item.

30


4. DiscussionThis paper presents the results of the analysis of certain areas in Croatian cataloguing

practice, based on Eva Verona's cataloguing manual Pravilnik i priručnik za izradbu

abecednih kataloga (PPIAK), and Anglo-American cataloguing practice, based on Anglo-

American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). Even though these issues deserve a more

thorough analysis and attention, our intention was to enlighten the main differences between

two manuals and practices and to prepare the floor for further comparative analyses of

cataloguing practices.

The reasons for such a comparison are manifold:

Croatian cataloguing manual is outdated and needs revision and updating with

contemporary global cataloguing practice (last revision of the manual was in

1986).

National and University Library in Zagreb introduced the Voyager Library

Management Software System in 2005. In the next phase, Voyager will be

introduced in other University libraries in Croatia. This raised many issues and

questions since Voyager incorporates MARC21 and logic of AACR. Croatian

libraries still use UNIMARC format and follow the rules of PPIAK manual.

AACR2, although not the international cataloguing code, is already being used as

such. Furthermore, with the finalization of the work on the new version of

AACR3, namely Resource Description and Access (RDA), it is becoming clear

that the new manual is created with intention to be truly international. At this point,

it is unclear whether Croatian cataloguing community will attempt to revise PPIAK

or to completely abandon it and entirely embrace RDA. Judging from the reaction

of Croatian cataloguers32, it might be fair to say that they are rather unprepared and

unwilling to abandon Croatian (e.g. Yugoslav) cataloguing practice. Complete

abandonment of Croatian cataloguing tradition is unnecessary and would create

more problems than solutions. It would be therefore more productive to thoroughly

revise and update PPIAK so that it offers solutions for all contemporary

bibliographic problems, but at the same time remains true to Croatian cataloguing

tradition.

32 Although Croatian cataloguers have not publicized their opinions, they expressed it at the International

conference organized to mark a centenary of Eva Verona's birth (Zagreb, November 17-18 2005)

31


The comparison conveyed that, although there are many similarities and common practices,

(after all, both manuals are founded on the Paris Principles and ISBDs), there are also some

differences in procedures and approaches. Table 3 gives the summarized overview of all the

differences discussed in this article.

Table 3. Differences between American and Croatian cataloguing codes

Area PPIAK AACR2, Rev.Organization of the manual

starts with headings starts with description

Objectives of the alphabetical catalogue

gives objectives no objectives

Levels of detail in the description

does not distinguish between various degrees of detail in the description

3 levels of description

Record layout more consistent with the ISBD layout

less consistent with the ISBD layout

Sources of information Edition Area – Title page Edition Area – Title page, other preliminaries, colophon

Multipart works multi-level description common

'flat' description common

Headings Headings for corporate bodies;

Geographic names;

Legal publications Geographic name + Uniform title

Choice of access points less formal in decision-making, insists on authorship, more prone to mistakes

more formal in approach, authorship less relevant, more consistent

Headings for persons outdated rules (multipart names of female married authors);

modern rules for multipart names of female married authors;

omits titles of nobility for Scandinavian and Slav authors

includes titles of nobility for Scandinavian and Slav authors;

chooses unique heading for contemporary authors that use pseudonyms;

establishes two headings for contemporary authors that use pseudonyms;

uses Latin form of the name for old Greek and Roman authors

uses English form of the name for old Greek and Roman authors

Headings for corporate bodies

adds a location to the name of the corporate body

does not always add a location to the name of the corporate body

complicated and ambiguous definition of a 'specific name' for a meeting, event, etc.

does not attempt to define a 'specific name' for a meeting, event, etc.

32


Uniform titles does not really use uniform titles

uses uniform titles

Description Title and Statement of Responsibility Area - many rules for meetings and meeting names

Title and Statement of Responsibility Area – no emphasis on meetings

Publication, Distribution, etc. Area – includes more details; preference given to place and publisher names given prominence by the layout or typography

Publication, Distribution, etc. Area – includes less details; preference given to place and publisher names named first

Series Area – instructions for recording several series names that the item belongs to

Series Area – no such instructions

Note Area – rarely notes on bibliographic history of the item

note about translated or modified works common

Note Area – notes on bibliographic history common

note about translated works omitted – the title of the original work given in the form of the uniform title

Added entries fewer added entries for secondary authors

more added entries for secondary authors

Table 3 offers digested overview of the differences analyzed and discussed in this

article. Many differences are a direct result of the emphasis on different objectives of the

alphabetic catalogue. Croatian code seems to be more concerned with authorship and

collocation of all works by the same author, but this presents the additional burden on a

cataloguer and often results in different solutions. American code is more formal in its

approach, cataloguing process can be swifter, mistakes fewer, but it is questionable whether it

succeeds to identify all the publications of one author, and whether they can be found at one

place in the catalogue. Some differences are a result of out datedness of Croatian manual, as is

the case with the multipart names of female married authors. And lastly, some of the

differences are caused by the attempt of the American code to offer simpler and clearer rules

(Croatian code is far more complicated and has almost double number of rules and

regulations).

One of the main disadvantages of Croatian cataloguing code is that it was created

mainly and primarily for printed material (e.g. monographic publications, although it also

gives provisions for the choice of headings for serials). Comparison further revealed that

Croatian code tends to have far more rules than the American (e.g. Croatian code has 253

33


rules and American, roughly counting, around 140), and tries to identify and give solution for

every bibliographic problem, especially in the part dedicated to the cataloguing description.

This might be one of the reasons why Eva Verona did not have time and energy to include

also other types of material in the manual– she got lost in the details. Although there are many

arguments for such a thorough and detailed manual (offers solution to every problem,

standardized description), its application is a challenge for cataloguers. In 1941 A. D.

Osborn33 was one of the first authors to criticize such manuals and make a connection

between a complex and detailed cataloguing manual and the inefficiency as well as price of

cataloguing (required more time, cataloguers not familiar with all the rules, needed frequent

education, etc.). American cataloguing community seem to have listened to his reasoning.

present situation.

On the other hand, American codeAACR2R seems to mix different approaches more

than Croatian codePPIAK. The combination of approaches in Croatian code is both

conceptually and physically tied to two volumes. The first volume, dedicated to headings,

insists on the identification of the author, creation of the unique heading, regardless what

name or the name form can be found in the item. Of course, this is motivated by the 3rd

objective of the catalogue (Alphabetical catalogue should provide an overview of all items

which contain works of a specific author). The second volume, dedicated to catalogue

description, pursues a formal approach and transcribes information as it is found in the item.

The division of the approaches is not that clear and limited to headings or description as in

Croatian code. And whereas the description part is mostly formal in approach, the part

dedicated to headings uses the mixture of both approaches. Since no catalogue objectives

were given in the introductory part, it is our conclusion that that mixture of approaches in the

part dedicated to headings is motivated by simplifying the decision process about the main

author i.e. main entry. At the same time, formality of certain rules definitely provides more

security that many of the cataloguing problems will result with the same solutions.

Croatian code does not really insist on the usage of uniform titles. Although there are

provisions that require uniform titles, they are in reality used only for anonymous classics and

legal publications because, next to uniform titles, there is one additional form of headings

(formal headings), that can be interpreted as a compromise between a heading and a uniform

title (because they consist of a geographical name and a prescribed uniform title). The only

difference is that the title is not treated as a uniform title but as a subordinate heading. This

lack of uniform titles may prove to be a big problem later when Croatian libraries decide to

33 A. D. Osborn, "The crisis in cataloguing", in The library quarterly 11,(1941): 393-411

34


organize their catalogues according to the FRBR model and may find themselves doing this

job manually.

All in all, Croatian cataloguing rules seem to have stronger emphasis on consistency

whereas American rules seem to be more usage drivenpragmatic and trying to accommodate

and anticipate user needs (e.g. usage driven).. The general feel is that there was an attempt to

simplify the American codeAACR2R and make it more user-friendly (although some may

disagree).

Based on this comparison, some recommendations for the revision of the Croatian

cataloguing code might read as follows:

revise thoroughly the heading part, especially the issue of compound female

names. Rethink whether we want to stick to the Latin form of the name of the old

Greek and Roman authors (there have already been some requests to enter the form

of the name in the vernacular in the main entry and for the Latin form of the name

to create a 'See' reference)

rephrase the definition for a 'specific name' for a meeting, conference, etc. so that it

is clear and unambiguous. Reconsider the possibility to treat the situation described

by the rule 8/3c (lack of grammatical connection between the generic words for

the type of the meeting and the topic) as a 'specific name' of the event which will

require a corporate heading.

notes statement, especially those regarding edition and bibliographic history (used

for assigning uniform titles) should be included regularly and more consistently.

uniform titles should be used regularly, not only for anonymous classics and legal

documents as they are used now. Assigning the uniform titles should be

determined more precisely at the level of expression (language, abridgement, etc.).

Furthermore, uniform titles should be assigned to series, something that is not done

at present. Also, a link should be made between a title proper of the series and a

uniform title.

regular usage of uniform titles would make the note statement about the original

title of the translated/or slightly modified work unnecessary.

in an electronic catalogue there is no need to use added entries as sparingly as the

provisions in the Code require. Croatian National and University Library already

assigns more added entries than required by the Code, however, their practice

cannot be regarded as a rule because their cataloguing records always contain more

35


data than regular records of other Croatian libraries simply because they are at the

same time used for the Croatian National Bibliography.

updated and revised code must integrate all types of materials and not be limited

only to some.

change and update terminology to reflect the changes in bibliographic world;

And finally, objectives of the catalogue should be looked into, expanded and

rewritten to reflect the generic tasks performed by users when searching or using

catalogues (find, identify, select, obtain34, navigate35)

5. Conclusion

This paper presents the results of the comparison of Croatian and American cataloguing

codes. The objective of the comparison was to give the overview of the most interesting and

striking differences between the codes, and not to be as thorough and comprehensive as

possible.

The spotted differences are caused by many reasons such as the cataloguing tradition

(Croatian cataloguing practice greatly influenced by Prussian Instructions), difference in focus

on the objectives of the catalogue (What is more important - to identify the work or the

publication that contains that work? To collocate all the works of one author (therefore insist

on the research process about the authorship of a certain work) or to collocate all the

manifestations of one work?), influence of ISBD family (Croatian cataloguing practice

follows ISBD recommendations), or even the out datedness of the manual (problem of the

Croatian code).

The recommendations for improvement of the Croatian cataloguing code contained in

this article are meant to inspire and even provoke the reactions of Croatian cataloguing

community and hopefully the end-result would be the initiation of the work on the new,

revised edition of Croatian cataloguing code. On the other hand, to the American cataloguing

community the comparison may offer the insight into the cataloguing practice of one of

European countries and may serve as a useful example for solutions for certain bibliographic

problems.

34 FRBR, 8-9. 35 Izjava o međunarodnim kataložnim načelima[Statement on international cataloguing principles], Frankfurt,

2003), 4. Retrieved on December 6th, 2006 from:

http://www.ddb.de/standardisierung/pdf/statement_croatian.pdf

36

http://www.ddb.de/standardisierung/pdf/statement_croatian.pdf


37

comparison of cataloguing codes: croatian vs american...

Documents