Adam and others,
Dave Reser and I discussed Adam's message Friday afternoon. Our
concern when determining LC's option decision was to avoid the often
time-consuming activity and the often "controversial" and sometimes
incorrect result of supplying a beginning date when the first issue,
part, or iteration isn't available. We also wanted an option decision
that was simple to implement.
(My perspective relates to serials: I know that publishers
often include a "founding" date that applies to an earlier title proper
of the serial now being cataloged; I know that you can't "count
backwards" from the numbering found on a current issue because
publication could have been suspended, numbering systems could have
changed, etc. Dave's perspective relates to electronic resources: he
has worked with LC's electronic resources catalogers and knows how much
time and discussion have been devoted to trying to supply beginning
dates for all bibliographic records.)
However, we do recognize that the situations Adam describes do
exist and we accept his reasons for wanting to convey the beginning
information. So, we're proposing a "new and improved" possibility for
the LC/PCC option decision for multipart items and integrating
resources:
a) Only if an explicit statement is found on the
resource itself --- no investigation and no "guessing"
[Remember: an "educated guess" can be given in
a 362 1]
b) Apply on case-by-case basis (i.e., cataloger's
judgment) since the 362 1 for a more detailed statement may be preferred
(i.e., be able to say 362 1 Created: 10 Nov. 1995 instead of just giving
1995 in 260 $c).
Would you want to do both? Give 260 $c and 362
1 when found statement has more than year?
c) For electronic resources, be careful about using a
copyright date. There are times when the copyright date (especially
when there is a span of copyright dates) applies to content within the
resource rather than the entire resource itself. When it is clear that
the copyright information applies to the entire resource and there is a
span of copyright dates, use the first date.
I'll be adding this proposal to the discussion at Thursday's
BIBCO/CONSER session.
Judy
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/26 3:37 AM >>>
One of the PCC option decisions that will be decided at the upcoming
joint
BIBCO/CONSER meeting is whether PCC libraries will be permitted to
apply
the option in the new rule 1.4F8 to supply a beginning and/or ending
date
when the first and/or last issue, iteration, or part is not available.
Since I won't be attending the meeting, I'd like to share my thoughts
about this with those of you who will be there.
I believe that PCC libraries ought to be allowed to apply the option
for
integrating resources and multipart items when the information about
the
beginning and/or ending date is available, even if the first and/or
last
iteration or part is not.
My experience with cataloging electronic integrating resources is that
information on the beginning date of the resource is often provided by
a
resource, and that when such information is readily available about
the
creation date, that we ought to be allowed to apply the option in
1.4F8
and include it in area 4 of bibliographic descriptions. The key part
of
the option in 1.4F8 is that the information must be "readily
ascertained"
and I believe that in many cases it can be. LC's stated rationale
about the "time, effort, and potential disagreement involved" would be,
in
such cases, insupportable.
Here are some examples that I have seen that illustrate my point:
------------------------------
The EMBL Reptile Database
(http://www.embl-heidelberg.de/~uetz/LivingReptiles.html)
On home page: "Created: 10 Nov 1995 / Last changed or updated: 30
March
2002" and also "Copyright 1995-2002 by Peter Uetz and EMBL Heidelberg"
The creation date is clearly stated, as is the copyright date of the
first
iteration through the most recent iteration.
------------------------------
Bird Families of the World (http://montereybay.com/creagrus/list.html)
On home page: "Page created 9 Feb 1999; content last updated 24 June
2001,
rearranged slightly 1 Oct 2001"
Again, the beginning date is readily ascertained.
------------------------------
Dictionary of Common Names (http://www.plantpress.com/docn.htm)
On home page: "The Dictionary of Common Names and these web pages are
copyright 1996-2001 The Plant Press."
Based on the information provided, it would be easy to supply a
beginning date as c1996-
------------------------------
The Families of Flowering Plants
(http://biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/angio/index.htm)
On home page: "Cite this publication as: L. Watson and M. J. Dallwitz
(1992 onwards). The Families of Flowering Plants: Descriptions,
Illustrations, Identification, and Information Retrieval. Version:
14th
December 2000."
The beginning year of 1992 is clearly stated on the resource.
------------------------------
Orthoptera Species File Online
(http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/Orthoptera)
On home page: "Copyright 1997 P. Naskrecki & D. Otte (this site first
posted 20 Oct.97; last updated 9 October 99)"
Again, the creation date of the first iteration is clearly stated.
------------------------------
I could supply numerous other examples, but I think the ones above
illustrate my contention that the beginning date can often be "readily
ascertained." In such cases, I believe that we ought to be able to
supply
this information in area 4 of bibliographic descriptions. The date
could
be used for searching and/or limiting in some catalogs, and it would
display in brief displays and might provide users with useful
information
with which to judge the currency and/or longevity of the resource.
The PCC policy would not have to REQUIRE catalogers to apply the
option.
The LCRI could be worded such that PCC libraries could formulate their
own
policies about this and catalogers could use their judgement and apply
the
option when they deem it appropriate. If "readily ascertained" needs
further explanation, I'm sure that we could provide additional guidance
on
what that means, perhaps using the kinds of examples I've provided
above.
I look forward to hearing discussion about this on this list and also
of
the outcome of the CONSER/BIBCO meeting on this topic.
Adam Schiff
**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff *
* Principal Cataloger *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 *
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* [log in to unmask] *
**************************************
|