Music Metadata and Authority Control in an International Context

Article excerpt

INTRODUCTION

Authority control is an important part of the cataloging process, for it brings consistency to the access points in library catalogs, which in turn enhances the discovery and retrieval of resources. It ensures that these access points are unique and consistent in content and form, and it provides a network of linkages for variant and related headings in the catalog. Reference to an authority file maintains consistency in controlled access points, while cross-references and the adjacent display of identical access points have been the primary methods used to accomplish the necessary linkages in the catalog. In Web-based catalogs, however, hypertext links are beginning to provide more direct catalog linkages, relieving the user of the need to retype a search query and perhaps introduce new errors in the process.

Discussions of authority control for music focus primarily on different aspects of bibliographic relationships, for it is the extensive existence of these relationships among music materials that creates the need for authority control. The literature of music librarianship on this topic is not extensive, but one study examined the types and extent of relationships in depth and discovered that relatedness is a pervasive characteristic of music materials. [1] Another study examined bibliographic families, i.e., that "set of works related to one another because they have common ideational and semantic content," revealing that the many instantiations of a musical work can make for a complex network of relationships. [2]

One particularly important authority control device for music is the uniform title. Barbara Tillett was among the first to discuss formally the uniform title in the context of bibliographic relationships, noting that it was used as a common device for linking related manifestations of a work and related works. [3] In an early empirical study, Richard Smiraglia examined a sample of musical works to determine the extent of need for uniform titles. [4] His research showed that virtually the entire sample yielded multiple manifestations and that the majority of these had titles proper differing from that of the first edition of the work. From these results Smiraglia concluded that uniform titles are a necessary part of the description of musical works and are needed to serve as authority control collocating devices. In another extensive article, this author traced the history and development of the uniform title, discussing the evolution from its early use for anonymous classics, sacred scriptures and specified publication forms, to its broader use today for any type of material in any format as the need warrants. [5] It is revealing that a large portion of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules for uniform titles is devoted to the application of uniform titles to musical works. [6]

Research has demonstrated that authority control is particularly essential for bibliographic records for music resources. [7] Many factors contribute to the extensive relatedness of music materials, including the high occurrence of works with generic form titles (e.g., Quartet or Symphony); the high occurrence of multiple editions and multiple recordings of the same work; the wide variety of presentation formats for the same work (e.g., full score, vocal score, etc.); and the high occurrence of arrangements, selections, and other bibliographic relationships for music materials. The international music publishing marketplace also contributes to the need for authority control. It is not uncommon for composer and performer names to appear in many different forms, languages, and scripts, or for works to be published under varying titles. Thus, authority control in terms of authorized forms of names and uniform titles has long been a standard part of life for the music cataloger. With the expanding environment of information organization, however, we need to take a new look at authority control. Will the basic principles and processes of authority control hold for music resources in an electronic environment? Is there a way to implement authority control with the variety of metadata schemes available in the distributed networked environment? And finally, will those outside the cataloging community lead the way in developing new concepts and methods for catalogers to implement? Before these questions can be answered, we must examine why authority control has worked so successfully in the library cataloging environment.

AUTHORITY CONTROL SUCCESS FACTORS

There are several reasons for the success of authority control, beginning with the fact that it operates within a well-defined and bounded universe, the library catalog. [8] These catalogs are value-added systems that describe and provide access to a highly selective, quality-controlled collection. A second reason for the success of authority control is that the creation of access points is based on principles and standardized practices that guide the process, including for many of us, the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules and the MARC format. In addition, authority work is aided by reference to authoritative lists such as the Library of Congress Name Authority File, the British Library Name Authority List, the Anglo-American Authority File, and the Library of Congress Subject Headings, to name a few. And finally, the cataloging process, and therefore authority work, is performed by highly trained individuals who are part of a library culture and understand cause and effect in the information retrieval process .

ATTEMPTS AT INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY CONTROL

All of these factors contribute not only to the integrity of local library catalogs, but also to the success of shared cataloging, especially on a national level. Cataloging within an international arena, however, presents new authority control challenges. Several authors and projects identify difficulties that arise because of geographic, language, and cultural bias when attempting to implement international authority control and international bibliographic data transfer. [9] Nonetheless, the international cataloging community is not easily deterred, and there are ongoing efforts to determine the feasibility of sharing authority records in terms of both the usefulness of record content and the ease of data transfer. Authority record content presents problems because different cataloging codes are used around the world, with different preferred forms of names, and different types of data included in the records. The exchange of authority records is difficult because there are many different national versions of the MARC format, despite recent efforts at harmonization. Music catalogers should be aware of three projects in particular that could influence authority work on a global scale: AUTHOR Project, ISADN, and IFLA's Working Group on Minimal Level Authority Records.

One international effort, the European Commission's AUTHOR Project, was conducted in 1997. [10] Members from the national libraries of Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom tested the usability of each other's authority records by creating a test database of sample records contributed by each library, using the UseMARCon software conversion program to convert national MARC records into the UNIMARC format. The database was designed to allow comparison of the same authority records from each country, with a focus on the usability of notes and cataloger information in their respective national languages. While the project participants were eager to pursue the possibility of internationally-shared authority records, the project results indicated that more work needs to be done before this can happen, especially in the following areas:

* sorting and displaying records,

* developing a multilingual interface,

* fully implementing a Z39.50 gateway for every participant,

* extending the UNIMARC authorities format to enable some powerful features of the national format such as longer coded fields, nationality data, and a repeatable information subfield in main headings,

* defining a minimum authority record content, and

* defining and using a code of good practice in order to guarantee that the content minimum will be available in every case.

The AUTHOR Project offered an exciting first step to determine whether international authority control was even possible and to identify the real difficulties in the process of international authority data transfer and use.

Another international authority control concept that has been discussed for years, but has not been realized, is the International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN). The aim of the ISADN would be to identify unambiguously the entity of the authority record on an international scale, unimpeded by language barriers. Conceived as an "intelligent" number, the ISADN would indicate the organization that established the authority record to which it refers, the nationality of the entity which it represents, and the language in which the author published most often. There would also be provision to link related authority records via the ISADN. [11]

In another effort to further the sharing of authority data on an international level, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) created a working group on Minimal Level Authority Records and ISADN, in part due to the AUTHOR Project identifying the need for a core authority record. The final report of the IFLA working group provides a list of mandatory data elements for internationally-shared resource authority records for names of persons, corporate bodies, conferences, and uniform titles; it does not include series, subject headings, and classification authorities. [12] Six data categories were identified, including record identification, language, authority, entity, references, and notes, containing nineteen mandatory elements.

It is interesting to note that the working group realized that "the IFLA goal of Universal Bibliographic Control by way of requiring everyone to use the same form of headings globally is not practical." [13] The members of the working group recognized that there are reasons to use the form of names familiar to one's own users, in scripts they can read and in forms they most likely would look for in their library catalog or national bibliography. To this end, the working group acknowledged the importance of allowing national or rule-based differences to remain in authorized forms of headings used in national bibliographies and library catalogs. This would allow catalogers to use as a preferred form of name that which meets the language and cultural needs of the particular institution's users. The report, therefore, proposed that each National Bibliographic Agency make its authority files available over the Internet at the IFLA home page. "Read-only" multi-file searching should be permitted across a range of a uthority files or a single national authority file as desired. Within this context, retrieval would be greatly enhanced by the use of some numbering mechanism to link the associated authority records created by the various agencies, either the local system record numbers (e.g., the 010 for Library of Congress Authority Records) or an International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN) for the entity, as was suggested by IFLA in the l970s.

IFLA will review the concept of an International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN) again within the next five years. The working group was concerned about the overhead expenses involved with maintaining such a numbering system and offered two recommendations: wait to see what impact the emerging international electronic environment and technological advances would have on linking records, while at the same time pursuing cooperative arrangements for a numbering scheme or authority record linking system with the archival community and the various associations that maintain databases of members and copyright holders for royalties. Thus, it appears that IFLA will take a back seat on this particular aspect of digital authority control, hoping that other communities will solve the problems for them.

Where does all this leave the international cataloging community in terms of authority control? There will be a slight shift beyond the status quo, with national authority databases available and a core standard for authority records. There also appears to be some movement towards accepting the idea of "access records," which accommodate authorized forms used by various communities, rather than imposing a single form on all users. [14] This would mean entrusting style and display to the local automated system, using whatever conventions the local library chose. [15] To prepare for such an eventuality, the International Association of Music Libraries (IAML) Bibliographic Control Commission is in the process of establishing a working group to conduct a feasibility study for the transfer and use of music authority records similar to the AUTHOR Project. But for now at least, the international community has adopted Christine L. Borgman's suggestion to think globally while acting locally. This advice could also ap ply to the creation and use of metadata beyond the traditional cataloging community, but the broader metadata environment is even more complex because of the multiple schemes and structures involved. What, then, are the possibilities for authority control within the global context of the metadata environment?

AUTHORITY CONTROL IN THE METADATA ENVIRONMENT

Authority control works well in the local library catalog, where the four success factors (well-defined boundary, application of principles and standardized practices, reference to authoritative lists, and highly trained professionals) can operate in a generally unimpeded environment; and while expansion of authority control into the international cataloging arena faces more complex problems, the success factors are still operable because authority control remains within the common milieu of the library catalog. No such common environment exists, however, for the broader metadata world. Different types of resources are being described with different types of metadata, and these metadata exist in different formats, files, and databases on different computers. What then are the chances of successful authority control when not only the resources, but the metadata describing these resources, are widely distributed? The answer to this question is as complex as the subject. The best way to begin is to define the t erm "metadata," and then examine how authority control is approached for a few metadata schemes already in use in the library community and how authority control is perceived outside the library environment.

AUTHORITY CONTROL IN FAMILIAR METADATA ENVIRONMENTS

Metadata are structured data that describe the attributes of a resource; characterize its relationships; support its discovery, management, and effective use; and exist in an electronic environment. For years catalogers referred to this type of information as bibliographic data, the main difference being that the term metadata was originally used by database management systems engineers and had the connotation of an electronic environment, while the term bibliographic data was tied to the library community, the book, and the card catalog technology of the nineteenth century. Even after the shift to online catalogs librarians continued to use the term bibliographic data; but when catalogers began to describe networked electronic resources, the terminology changed. Suddenly the MARC record became metadata, and the cataloger's familiar world--circumscribed by the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules and the MARC format--collided with the broader world of information organization. The methods of organizing resources from the rather separate domains of library science, computer science, and information science all converged in this networked environment, and metadata became the commonly accepted term in all disciplines. [16]

Although now using the same terminology, librarians, archivists, museum curators, and information specialists from many other sectors of society all approached the problem of organization and access for electronic resources from their own frame of reference. This resulted in the simultaneous and parallel development of a wide variety of metadata schemes, with each metadata model designed to include the type of information that best serves the needs of its own user community. To date, the music library community has not developed its own music metadata, choosing instead to use and adapt other metadata schemes, especially the Dublin Core and the Encoded Archival Description (EAD), to meet the needs of music users.

It remains to be seen if this proliferation of metadata schemes will improve description and access for library users, or only compound current problems. Much will depend on the ease with which metadata can be incorporated into current library systems, and the compatibility of imported metadata with existing library catalog data. In other words, the successful use of multiple metadata schemes in the library environment will depend on authority control.

Several of the most popular metadata schemes in use today were developed by people who understood and worked closely with the cataloging community, and therefore were exposed to the cataloging concept of authority control. In these cases the metadata schemes provide for, but do not require, authority control of some data. In a recent paper prepared for the Library of Congress Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, Priscilla Caplan briefly discusses the current trends in metadata authority control. [17] Primary among these trends is a move to relocate agent information (i.e., persons or corporate bodies responsible for content or production) into separate files defined by separate metadata element sets. This is evident in three areas of interest to the music community: archives, visual resources, and the Dublin Core.

The archives community is developing a standard generalized markup language (SGML) code for archival authority records based on the International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (ISAAR(CPF)). Unlike Library of Congress name authority records, which contain little information about the person or body other than the authorized and variant forms of names, the ISAAR records "describe fully the attributes of the creator needed to appreciate the context of creation of a body of archival documents," allowing contextual information about the person or body to be maintained separately from the archival entity described in the Encoded Archival Description (EAD) itself. [18] This structural model is much like cataloging's separate authority file with direct linkage to the descriptive record, but with much more information provided in the authority record.

Similarly, the most recent version of the Visual Resources Association (VRA) Core (3.0), which is used to describe visual materials, especially reproductions, has also removed certain details about the creator from the descriptive metadata record where they were contained before. Information such as nationality and culture will now be included in an auxiliary authority file. [19]

Perhaps of most interest to music catalogers is the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative recently adopted the use of element qualifiers, some of which will assist the authority control process by providing a mechanism for identifying the source of controlled data. [20] Specifically, Encoding Scheme Qualifiers for subject and coverage elements identify the authoritative sources upon which the element value is based (e.g., [less than]meta name="DC.Subject" scheme="LCSH"[greater than]). According to Caplan, the Dublin Core community is discussing the possible development of an "agent core" record. Similar to a name authority record, this core record might include a structured set of metadata elements, such as affiliation, address, nationality, and so forth, which properly pertain to the agent rather than the resource being described. It is interesting to note that in the metadata context, authority control records for agents include not only information about those responsible f or creating or contributing to the creation of a resource, but also include information about publishers, owners, and copyright holders. This indicates a much broader approach to the functions of metadata than librarians have applied to the functions of bibliographic records.

These developments in authority control for metadata schemes are important for the cataloging community, primarily because these newly created identifiers and authority files will become a source of authority data for cataloging purposes. All of these developments, however, are in metadata communities that are closely allied to the cataloging community. Authority control issues are also on the agenda in the wider Internet community beyond cataloging and its related metadata cousins.

AREAS OF CONTROL BEYOND THE LIBRARY

First of all, the metadata world beyond the library community speaks a very different language. The term authority control is rarely heard; and the term "access control," which librarians use to describe a more flexible form of authority control, means something entirely different outside of library cataloging. What is discussed are standards, identifiers, locators, data dictionaries and registries, all of which can be viewed as components of authority control. The broader metadata community understands that computers operate more efficiently with unique identifiers for resources and entities, and especially in the world of E-commerce, the concept of authority control, if not the term, has become singularly important.

The most visible promoter of authority control in the international metadata environment is the INDECS project (INteroperability of Data in E-Commerce Systems). [21] Funded by the European Commission and supported by trade associations representing record companies, music publishers, film companies, and book and journal publishers, the project's goal is to create a structural metadata framework for the electronic trading of intellectual property rights in all media. There are three basic axioms of INDECS that present a strong case for authority controlled data: 1) everything must be uniquely identified; 2) "stuff" is complex; and, 3) metadata are modular. [22] Each of these axioms deserves further consideration.

EVERYTHING MUST BE UNIQUELY IDENTIFIED

This principle of unique identification operates at many different levels. First of all, things must be identified: the intellectual property, the people, and the associated agreements need to be uniquely distinguished. Second, everything must be uniquely identified within its own domain. So long as you know that the number 0-8108-3413-8 is an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) and not a telephone number, the identification of the book to which it refers is secure. Third, INDECS proposes that the metadata structure itself must use unique identifiers.

All the terms used in INDECS are carefully defined within a structured data dictionary. A definition itself is a form of unique identification, whereby one term can be distinguished from another. The terms within the INDECS data dictionary are themselves uniquely identified using INDECS identification (iid) numbers. For example, the term "agent" has the iid = 11. The corollary to this in the cataloging world would be to assign identification numbers to the elements of the bibliographic record (e.g., title proper = 1; other tide information = 2, etc.). This system of identification is central to the way in which INDECS will support interoperability, not through language but through unique identification.

"STUFF" 15 COMPLEX

The INDECS metadata model is built on three entities: people, creations, and agreements. The four states of a work as defined by the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records [23] (work, expression, manifestation, and item) were used as the basic conceptual model for a creation. Each occurrence of each state requires unique identification, because rights can be traded at any level of the model. This accounts for INDECS's strong interest in standard identifiers such as International Standard Book Numbers (ISBN) and Digital Object Identifiers (DOI), which identify manifestations, and International Standard Work Codes, which identify works. [24]

The beginning of this article discussed the extent of relatedness among music materials. Research has shown that because of the complex nature of music and the documents in which music is represented, there is a high proportion of relatedness among musical bibliographic entities, and the bibliographic families created by this relatedness are complex. [25] Authority control is needed, therefore, in order to help users understand the relationships among musical works and their many instantiations and to facilitate the discovery and retrieval of related items and works. The extent of relatedness will no doubt increase as new formats are developed to contain instances of musical works and expand further these bibliographic families. Already music libraries are broadening their collections to include digital images of published scores, encoded score notation files, MIDI format files, complex text and image files, and a variety of sound and video format files. It is the expansion of bibliographic families into the digital environment that led the developers of INDECS to declare that "stuff is complex" and to have as their primary goal a sophisticated system of authority control for data at all levels of the work model.

METADATA ARE MODULAR

The basic principle that metadata are modular means that metadata elements that originate in one context can be used in another context in ways that are as highly automated as possible. As traditional models for data exchange break down, organizations will need to integrate metadata from a variety of sources. Several hurdles exist for this type of data exchange, and the metadata creator will want to be sure that the metadata accuracy survives intact as it negotiates the boundaries of information transfer. The INDECS model is designed to support at least five different types of interoperability:

* across media (such as books, serials, audio, audiovisual, software, abstract works, visual material);

* across functions (such as cataloging, discovery, workflow, rights management);

* across levels of metadata (from simple to complex);

* across semantic and linguistic barriers; and

* across technology platforms. [26]

INDECS identified a core group of initiatives where metadata standards are being developed and where the need for interoperability will cross the barriers identified above. Among them are metadata schemes developed for groups tangentially related to the music community, including the recording industry, the entertainment industries, the educational community, and the audiovisual communities. To some degree, developers of these schemes are finding that metadata must accommodate multimedia objects and be multifunctional, multilevel, and multilingual, while remaining technology neutral. As the networked environment renders the traditional domain divisions increasingly meaningless, metadata records using different schemes will inevitably need to interoperate with one another. No doubt the need for interoperability will affect music metadata as well. For example, in the future the same metadata that describe a digital music resource may need to be handled within all of these related industry metadata schemes, and perhaps more. INDECS assumes that "make once, use many times" metadata is the only viable economic model for the future, and it will not be long before libraries are subscribing to the same view.

CONCLUSIONS

Authority control will become simultaneously more important and more difficult to achieve in the complex universe of metadata. Review of the four success factors as applied to the distributed metadata environment shows that 1) the well-defined and bounded universe of the local library catalog is fast giving way to multi-catalog and multi-database access; 2) no one set of principles and practices applies in the global metadata world; 3) no one authority file will suffice for all metadata (it does not now!); and 4) metadata is being created by a variety of people with greatly varying backgrounds and levels of expertise. With the traditional success factors now mitigating against successful authority control in the global metadata environment, the collective information organization communities must work together to develop new methods to ensure the success of authority control. Much can be accomplished with the use of more sophisticated encoding standards, such as the extensible markup language (XML), and arch itectural structures such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF), which allows reference to innumerable authoritative lists through its authority linking capabilities. Developers of disparate metadata schemes must follow the lead of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative and INDECS and work together to create mechanisms to identify the principles and practices that are being applied to the creation of metadata. Finally, standard methods of identifying the metadata source must be established to enable metadata users to judge the trustworthiness of the information.

Thus, in order for authority control to succeed in the distributed metadata universe, we need to promote interoperability in terms of authority data inclusiveness, where data and its controlling system are both clearly defined. In other words, we need to 1) identify the metadata type from among various schemes; 2) verify and validate a particular metadata's semantics and syntax; 3) verify the agency that created the metadata; 4) verify specific standards used for data content and form; 5) identify specific resources; and 6) exchange data elements among metadata packages. The RDF is one architectural model that is designed to do just this. [27]

In light of the developments in international authority control discussed above, it is highly likely that the library community will develop mechanisms to include authority data from a variety of sources in its own authority records. In addition, it is in the library community's best interest to encourage crosswalks and other structural exchange models among these developing authority schemes, for exchange is a two-way street, and users of other metadata schemes may find that using authority data from the cataloging community is better than duplicating the vast amount of work that has already been done. No matter what one's views of the publishing, recording, and e-commerce industries, in the electronic environment much library metadata will exist alongside and commingle with metadata for intellectual property rights. It is important to be aware of current developments in metadata and authority control in these related sectors of the music community. Librarians should find ways to share their knowledge with these other communities, and to apply the intellectual work that others have accomplished for the benefit of the library world.

Sherry L. Vellucci is associate professor, Division of Library & Information Science, St. John's University, New York. This article is a revision of a paper presented at the International Association of Music Libraries, Archives, and Documentation Centres conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, on 10 August 2000.

(1.) Sherry L. Vellucci, Bibliographic Relationships in Music Catalogs (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 1997).

(2.) David H. Thomas and Richard P. Smiraglia, "Beyond the Score." Notes 54 (March 1998): 619-66.

(3.) Barbara Ann Barnett Tillett, "Bibliographic Relationships: Toward a Conceptual Structure of Bibliographic Information Used in Cataloging," (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1987).

(4.) Richard P. Smiraglia, "Uniform Titles for Music: An Exercise in Collocating Works," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1989): 97-114.

(5.) Sherry L. Vellucci, "Uniform Titles as Linking Devices," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 13, no. 1 (1990): 35-62.

(6.) Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2d ed., 1998 rev. (Chicago: American Library Association, 1998), 518-38.

(7.) Vellucci, Bibliographic Relationships; Smiraglia, "Uniform Titles."

(8.) Sherry L. Vellucci, "Metadata and Authority Control." Library Resources & Technical Services 44 (January 2000): 33-43.

(9.) See, for example, Christine L. Borgman, "From Acting Locally to Thinking Globally: A Brief History of Library Automation," Library Quarterly 67 (1997): 215-49; Francoise Bourdon, "Name Authority Control in an International Context and the Role of the National Bibliographic Agency," International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control 23 (October-December 1994): 71-77; Tom Delsey, "Authority Control in an International Context," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1989): 13-28; Eeva Murtomaa and Eugenie Greig, "Problems and Prospects of Linking Various Single-Language and/or Multi-Language Name Authority Files," International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control 23 (July-September 1994): 55-58; Bernhard Eversberg, et al., "REUSE: A Contribution to the Enhancement of International Bibliographic Compatibility" ([1997]), http://www.oclc.org/oclc/cataloging/reuse_project/reuse_final_report. htm, accessed 8 September 2000; Barbara B. Tillett, "International Shared Resource Records for Controlled Ac cess," ALCTS Newsletter Online 10 (December 1998), http://www.ala.org/alcts/alcts_news/v10n1/gateway.html; and Sherry L. Vellucci, "Bibliographic Relationships," in The Principles and Future of AACR: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 23-25, 1997, ed. Jean Weihs (Chicago: American Library Association, 1998): 105-46.

(10.) Sonia Zillhardt and Francoise Bourdon, AUTHOR Project: Final Report" (June 1998), http://www.bl.uk/information/author.pdf, accessed 8 September 2000.

(11.) Mirna Willer, "Authority control and International Standard Authority Data Numbers: Need for International Cooperation," in Authority Control in the 21st Century: An Invitational Conference, March 31-April 1, 1996. Proceedings, http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/authconf/willer.htm, accessed 8 September 2000.

(12.) IFLA Universal Bibliographic control and International MARC core Programme (UBCIM), Working Group on Minimal Level Authority Records and ISADN, "Mandatory Data Elements for Internationally Shared Resource Authority Records" (1998), http://www.ifla.org/VI/3/p1996-2/mlar.htm, accessed 8 September 2000.

(13.) Ibid.

(14.) Linda Barnhart. "Access control Records: Prospects and challenges," in Authority Control in the 21st Century: An Invitational Conference, March 31-April 1, 1996, Proceedings, http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/authconf/barnhart.htm, accessed 8 September 2000.

(15.) Tillett, "International Shared Resource Records."

(16.) vellucci, "Metadata and Authority control," 34.

(17.) Priscilla caplan, "International Metadata Initiatives: Lessons in Bibliographic Control," in Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium: Confronting the Challenges of Networked Resources and the Web, November 15-17, 2000 (July 2000; conference papers made available in advance of the conference), http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/caplan.html, accessed 8 September 2000.

(18.) International Council on Archives, Ad Hoc commission on Descriptive Standards, ISAAR(CPF): International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (Ottawa: The Secretariat of the ICA Ad Hoc Commission on Descriptive Standards. 1996); also available on the Web at http://dobc.unipv.it/obc/, Documentazione didattica, Informatica applicata agli archivi, accessed 18 October 2000.

(19.) visual Resources Association, Data Standards Committee, "VRA Core Categories, Version 3.0" (June 2000), http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/-staffasv3/vra/vracore3.htm, accessed 8 September 2000.

(20.) Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, "Dublin Core Qualifiers" (July 2000), http://purl.ocic.org/dc/documents/rec/dcmes-qualifiers-20000711.htm, accessed 8 September 2000.

(21.) INDECS, http://www.indecs.org, accessed 21 June 2000.

(22.) INDECS, "Axioms," http://www.indecs.org/project/sxioms.htm, accessed 21 June 2000.

(23.) International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report, UBCIM Publications, new ser., vol. 19 (Munich: K. C. Saur. 1998); also available on the Web at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf, accessed 18 October 2000.

(24.) It appears that the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) did not take the work model developed in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records into consideration when developing the International Standard Musical Work Code as it currently exists. Thus, it is not compatible with current cataloging thought on the definition of a musical work.

(25.) Vellucci, Bibliographic Relationships in Music Catalogs. 87, 235; Tlsomas and Smiraglia.

(26.) Godfrey Rust and Mark Bide, "The INDECS Metadata Framework: Principles, Model and Data Dictionary" (June 2000), p. 4. http://www.indecs.org/pdf/schema.pdf, accessed 8 September 2000.

(27.) Sherry L. Vellucci, "Metadata and Music: Issues and Directions," Fontes Artis Musicae, forthcoming.

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.