Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 1 of 35
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is, using the methodology of comparative analysis, to examine closely two cataloguing codes: AACR2, used in the USA, and PPIAK, used in Croatia, and find out the similarities and differences in their approaches and solutions of certain bibliographic problems. The comparison with the code 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.
The objectives of an alphabetical catalogue have remained more or less the same ever since Charles Ammi Cutter wrote his objectives of the dictionary catalogue in 1876
1
.
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 extended
2
. However, the FRBR model places the focus, once again, on the literary unit e.g. work as was the case in pre-Panizzi's time
3
.
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 practices
4 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

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 2 of 35 today in Croatian libraries, namely, Eva Verona's Pravilnik i priručnik za izradbu abecednih kataloga (PPIAK) 5 .
Up until 1961 all the activities connected with the work on cataloguing manuals were carried out within the boundaries of the republics of former Yugoslavia
6
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 Zagreb
7
. 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 Verona 8 , 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 published
9
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

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 3 of 35 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 1974
11
. 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 terminology
12
. 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 described
13
. 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
3

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 4 of 35 sound foundation for the initial attempts toward library automation and record sharing.
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 libraries
14
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.
The comparison was carried out on the basis of the following cataloguing codes:
4

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 5 of 35

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
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 AACR2R. 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.
3.3.1. 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 postponed
15
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

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 6 of 35 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 catalogue
Objectives 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 Principles 16 :
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 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 to
17
:
 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
PPIAK does not recommend various levels of description as does AACR2 (1.0D.).
The description that Croatian manual sets as a standard description corresponds more or less to the American second level of description. However, although the Croatian manual does not
6

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 7 of 35 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 issued
18
. 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).
3.3.4. 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
Area PPIAK
Title page or its substitute
AACR2 for printed monographs
Title page Title and statement of responsibility
Edition Title page
Publication, distribution, etc. Title page, other preliminaries, colophon
Physical description
Series
The publication itself
Anywhere in publication
Note Any source
Standard number and terms Any source
Title page, other preliminaries, colophon
Title page, other preliminaries, colophon
The whole publication
Series title page, monograph title page, cover, rest of publication
Any source
Any source
7

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 8 of 35 of availability
AACR2 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.
3.3.5. 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 lower series number than volumes one or two, or volume two lower than 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
8

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 9 of 35
(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 Reuel
Gospodar 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-X
Dio 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 whole
22
. However, this is one of the minor rules and in the Code the preference is given to a 'flat' description of multipart works (2.5B17-2.5B23; 13.3; 21.2A1, 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), 1892-1973
The 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
9

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 10 of 35 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.
3.3.6. 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
Persons
Corporate bodies
Geographic entities
PPIAK
Headings for persons
Headings for corporate bodies
Headings for corporate bodies
Formal heading
AACR2
Heading for persons
Heading for corporate bodies
Geographic names
Legal publications Geographic name + Uniform title
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. Zakoni
23
10

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 11 of 35
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 lowerlevel 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).
AACR2R prescribes the usage of Geographic name in combination with Uniform title: e.g. United States
[Laws, etc.]
As for the language, AACR2R 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 it is our recommendation that Croatian practice remains the same.
3.3.6.1. Choice of access points
3.3.6.1.1. Works of mixed responsibility
PPIAK and 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
11

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 12 of 35 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 AACR2R 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 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 AACR2R 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
12

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 13 of 35 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 AACR2R 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.
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
AACR2R and 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.
3.3.6.2. Headings for persons
3.3.6.2.1. 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 AACR2R which instructs the same (22.5C3.). However, not all compound names are
13

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 14 of 35 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 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.
AACR2R, 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 : It 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
14

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 15 of 35 must change to reflect the present practice of forming the compound surnames of Croatian female writers.
3.3.6.2.2. 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 AACR2R (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 practice
25
:
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.
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.
3.3.6.2.3. 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
15

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 16 of 35 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).
AACR2R, 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.
3.3.6.2.4. 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 vernacular 26 .
The AACR2R 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 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:
16

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 17 of 35
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. A mandatory 'See' reference from the Latin or Greek form of their name should be created.
3.3.6.3. Headings for corporate bodies
3.3.6.3.1. Addition to the name
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
AACR2R 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.
3.3.6.3.2. 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)
17

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 18 of 35 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
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 (!)
AACR2R, on the other hand, tries 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 end 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 in Croatian case, the decision-making process when it comes to corporate headings for meetings, conferences, events, etc. is more complicated than in
American case and results more often in different solutions. .
Recommendation : In order to reduce ambiguity and different solutions 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.
3.3.7. Uniform titles
In the introduction of PPIAK Verona states that the functions of the catalogue are often in conflict 27 . 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
18

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 19 of 35 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 by
28
:
 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;
 as many added entries, analytical added entries, (or see and see also references), as is necessary to facilitate 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 matter
29
. 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 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.
AACR2R, 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
19

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 20 of 35 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 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. Description
Some differences in the description between the codes are the result of the three levels of description suggested by AACR2R. 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 work
30
. 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).
20

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 21 of 35
AACR2R, 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, 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).
AACR2R 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 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
21

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 22 of 35 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"
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 & Sons
Source of information reads: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd.
22

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 23 of 35
In AACR2R 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. Our previous example would therefore described as follows:
. – London : I. Pitman
Recommendations : Croatian code is again too meticulous and gives too many rules and this might be a segment which could be simplified. Here, PPIAK 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 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)
AACR2R 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)
23

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 24 of 35
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 : PPIAK 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 AACR2R. 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, the 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).
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.
24

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 25 of 35
3.3.9. Added entries
Both 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 AACR2R, 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 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.
AACR2R, 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)
25

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 26 of 35
 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).
AACR2R 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.
4. Discussion
This 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, 2 nd
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:
26

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 27 of 35

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 cataloguers
32
, 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.
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
Organization of the manual
Objectives of the alphabetical catalogue
Levels of detail in the description
Record layout
PPIAK
 starts with headings

 gives objectives does not distinguish between various degrees of detail in the description
 more consistent with the
AACR2, Rev.
 starts with description


 no objectives
3 levels of description less consistent with the
27

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 28 of 35
Sources of information

ISBD layout
Edition Area – Title page
ISBD layout

Edition Area – Title page, other preliminaries, colophon

'flat' description common Multipart works
Headings
Choice of access points
 less formal in decisionmaking, insists on
Headings for persons authorship, more prone to mistakes
 outdated rules (multipart names of female married authors);
 omits titles of nobility for
Scandinavian and Slav
Headings for corporate bodies
Uniform titles authors
 chooses unique heading for contemporary authors that use pseudonyms;
 uses Latin form of the name for old Greek and Roman authors
 adds a location to the name of the corporate body
 complicated and ambiguous definition of a 'specific name' for a meeting, event, etc.
 does not really use uniform
Description
 multi-level description common

Headings for corporate bodies;

Legal publications

Geographic names;

Geographic name +
 more formal in approach,

Uniform title authorship less relevant, more consistent modern rules for multipart names of female married authors;
 includes titles of nobility for Scandinavian and Slav authors;
 establishes two headings for contemporary authors that use pseudonyms;
 uses English form of the name for old Greek and
Roman authors
 does not always add a location to the name of the corporate body
 does not attempt to define a
'specific name' for a meeting, event, etc.
 uses uniform titles titles

Title and Statement of
Responsibility Area - many rules for meetings and meeting names

Publication, Distribution, etc.
Area – includes more details; preference given to place and publisher names given prominence by the layout or

Title and Statement of
Responsibility Area – no emphasis on meetings

Publication, Distribution, etc. Area – includes less details; preference given to place and publisher names named first typography

Series Area – instructions for recording several series

Series Area – no such instructions names that the item belongs to

Note Area – rarely notes on

Note Area – notes on
28

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 29 of 35
Added entries bibliographic history of the item
 note about translated or modified works common
 fewer added entries for secondary authors bibliographic history common
 note about translated works omitted – the title of the original work given in the form of the uniform title
 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 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.
Osborn
33
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.
29

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 30 of 35
On the other hand, AACR2R seems to mix different approaches more than PPIAK.
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 3 rd
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 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 pragmatic and trying to accommodate and anticipate user needs (e.g. usage driven). The general feel is that there was an attempt to simplify the
AACR2R 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
30

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 31 of 35 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.
 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 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, obtain
34
, navigate
35
)
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.
31

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 32 of 35
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.
1 C. 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
32

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 33 of 35 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 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
33

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 34 of 35 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 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, v ol. 1, 13.
17 RDA . Part I – Draft for constituency review (December 2005), 0.1-2
18 Priručnik za skraćeni kataložni zapis [Manual for a shorter cataloguing description] . Priredila Dorica
Blažević ( Zagreb : Hrvatsko bibliotekarsko društvo, 1988).
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. Laws
24 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.
27 Verona, Pravilnik , vol 1, 13-16.
28 Verona, Pravilnik , vol. 1, 16.
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.
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.
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
34

Code comparison: Croatian vs. American pg 35 of 35 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.
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)
33 A. D. Osborn, "The crisis in cataloguing", in The library quarterly 11,(1941): 393-411
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
35