AACR2 Revision 2002: New Approaches to Cataloging Electronic Resources

Cataloging a printed book is relatively straightforward. The title page sits in front of you, the publication details are fixed, and the physical object does not change once it leaves the press. A CD-ROM, a piece of software, or a constantly updating website behaves very differently. By the early 2000s, librarians were struggling to fit these fluid digital objects into rules designed for stable print materials. The 2002 revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) was the formal response to this problem, and its reworking of Chapter 9 reshaped how libraries describe digital materials.

Why cataloging rules needed to change 🔗

For most of the twentieth century, cataloging codes assumed that an information resource was a physical thing you could hold, measure, and store on a shelf. The earlier AACR2 chapter for digital materials was called “Computer Files,” and it was built on an older international standard known as ISBD(CF), the International Standard Bibliographic Description for Computer Files. That standard treated digital items mainly as data sets and programs stored on tangible carriers like floppy disks.

The trouble was that technology had moved far beyond data files on disks. A reviewer of the abridged rules noted that the computer-file chapter still leaned on a standard that was over a decade old, which in a fast-moving field made it almost antique in practice. Multimedia, the World Wide Web, online databases, and software distributed over networks all needed a vocabulary and a set of rules that print-era thinking could not provide. The solution drew on a newer standard, ISBD(ER), the IFLA standard for electronic resources published in 1997, which the 2002 revision aligned AACR2 with much more closely.

From “computer files” to “electronic resources” 🔗

The most visible change was a name. The 2001 amendments, which were absorbed into the 2002 edition, completely reissued Chapter 9 and renamed it “Electronic Resources.” The general material designation, the bracketed phrase that tells a user what kind of thing they are looking at, changed from “computer file” to “electronic resource.” This was not a cosmetic edit. The word “file” suggested a single static object, while “resource” was broad enough to cover programs, multimedia, websites, and databases.

What counts as an electronic resource 🔗

Under the revised Chapter 9, an electronic resource is understood to consist of data, programs, or a combination of both. Data covers information represented as numbers, text, graphics, images, maps, moving images, music, and sound, while programs are the instructions that process that data, as explained in the cataloging guidance hosted by INFLIBNET’s e-content for LIS. One important boundary remained: programs permanently built into a device, such as software stored in a calculator’s read-only memory, are treated as part of the device rather than as a separate electronic resource.

Direct access versus remote access 🔗

The revision drew a clear line between two ways of using a digital resource. Direct access means the user needs a physical carrier, such as a CD-ROM, a DVD, or a USB device inserted into a machine. Remote access means there is no physical carrier in the user’s hands at all; the resource is reached over a network, most often the internet. This distinction became the backbone of many specific rules, because the two situations raise completely different practical questions for the cataloger.

The impact of the internet and electronic media 🔗

The rise of the internet forced cataloging codes to confront resources that have no fixed physical form and may change from day to day. The 2002 revision built in several rules specifically to handle this instability.

Treating remote resources as published 🔗

Earlier rules left catalogers uncertain about whether a website or an online file counted as “published.” The revised Chapter 9 settled the question directly by stating that all remote access electronic resources are to be considered published. This mattered because publication status affects how the place of publication and publisher are recorded. In practice, when a resource clearly comes from a particular organization, that body is treated as the publisher, while the internet service provider is generally not named as publisher unless no other information is available.

Recording the date viewed 🔗

Because a website can be edited at any moment, the description a cataloger creates is only ever accurate for a single point in time. The revision addressed this through rule 9.7B22, which requires catalogers to always record the date on which a remote access resource was viewed for description. A typical note reads something like “Description based on contents viewed January 28, 2013.” This single requirement acknowledges a basic truth of the digital age: the catalog record is a snapshot, not a permanent portrait.

Key changes in the areas of description 🔗

Bibliographic description in AACR2 is divided into areas, each holding a particular kind of information such as title, edition, or physical detail. The 2002 revision adjusted several of these areas to suit electronic resources.

The chief source of information 🔗

The chief source is the part of a resource a cataloger should rely on first when recording details. For electronic resources, the chief source is the resource itself, drawing on formally presented evidence such as the title screen, opening displays, a home page, or embedded metadata. For example, a cataloger records the title as it appears on the title screen of a CD-ROM rather than as printed on the packaging, unless no title screen exists. This hierarchy produced more consistent records across different libraries describing the same item.

The type and extent of resource area 🔗

One of the more technical shifts involved Area 3, which had previously been called the “File Characteristics Area” and became the “Type and Extent of Resource Area.” The old rules expected catalogers to record details like the number of records, statements, or bytes. The revision recognized that such figures change constantly and are hard to determine reliably, so the requirement was relaxed. The Library of Congress went further and instructed its own catalogers not to use this area for original cataloging of electronic resources at all, a local practice many other institutions chose to follow as well.

Conventional terminology for physical carriers 🔗

The revision allowed plain, everyday terms in the physical description. Under rule 9.5B1, a cataloger can write “1 CD-ROM” instead of the older and more cumbersome “1 computer optical disc.” This made records easier to read for both staff and users without sacrificing accuracy, and it reflected the way people actually talk about these objects.

The general material designation 🔗

While ISBD(ER) had introduced an expanded list of designations, AACR2 did not adopt all of them. The “electronic resource” designation replaced “computer file,” but catalogers were advised not to import the wider ISBD(ER) vocabulary into AACR2-compliant records. This kept the rules internally consistent even as they modernized.

New guidelines for software and online resources 🔗

The revised chapter gave catalogers clearer footing for the two areas that print rules had handled worst: interactive software and resources that live entirely online.

Cataloging software and interactive media 🔗

Software and interactive digital media are treated as electronic resources made up of programs, or of programs combined with data. The cataloger describes them using the same framework of areas, taking the title from the title screen and using conventional terms for any physical carrier. Crucially, the description focuses on what the resource is and how it is accessed, rather than on volatile internal measurements that an earlier generation of rules tried to capture.

Websites, databases and integrating resources 🔗

The 2002 edition did not stop at Chapter 9. It also revised Chapter 12, renaming it “Continuing Resources” and introducing the concept of the integrating resource. An integrating resource is one that is updated in a way where the changes blend into the whole rather than appearing as separate issues. Updating websites and updating loose-leaf publications are the classic examples. For an updating website, a cataloger uses Chapter 12 for the integrating nature of the resource together with Chapter 9 for its electronic carrier. This pairing of chapters let libraries finally describe a living, changing website in a structured way, using a model that updated the record to reflect the latest version of the site.

The lasting significance of the 2002 revision 🔗

AACR2 was a joint product of professional bodies in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, and the 2002 revision was published by these cooperating associations. Its careful handling of electronic resources laid important groundwork for what came next. Many of the ideas it wrestled with, such as treating resources as expressions and manifestations and accommodating change over time, fed directly into Resource Description and Access (RDA), the standard that eventually succeeded AACR2. For students of cataloging, the 2002 revision is a clear case study in how a stable, print-centred code adapted itself to a digital world without abandoning the structure that made it useful in the first place.

What do you think? If a website changes the day after you catalog it, how useful is the “date viewed” note to a researcher who finds the record years later? And as more resources move entirely online, do you think the distinction between direct access and remote access still matters as much as it did in 2002?

References

1. https://www.emerald.com/lm/article/21/6/330/271675/The-Concise-AACR2-1998-Revision
2. https://www.ifla.org/
3. https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/amen2001.html
4. https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/lisp3/chapter/cataloguing-of-special-materials-electronic-resources-according-to-aacr2-r1988-2002/
5. https://studylib.net/doc/5271391/revised-aacr2-chapter-9
6. https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/aacr2002.html
7. https://www.librarianshipstudies.com/2018/12/anglo-american-cataloguing-rules-aacr.html