{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014705882352941176, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014705882352941176, 'mean_word_length': 5.4245283018867925, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Descriptions of Reproductions of Previously Existing Works: Another View

Under the provisions of AACR, description of microform republications was in terms of the orginal publication to which the data concerning microformat was subordinated. AACR 2, on the other hand, instructed that description of all types of materials be based upon the physical item being catalogued, subordinating information about the original publication to that of the present copy. As a member of a CC:DA task force studying the controversy, the author suggests reasons why the description of the original in microforms cataloging may not be the ideal solution to the problem surrounding reproductions.