LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  April 2002

PCCLIST April 2002

Subject:

Re: Publication dates for integrating resources

From:

Judith A Kuhagen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:53:07 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (175 lines)

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]           *
**************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager