Here is my suggested re-wording:
"Note. The Bath profile provides a specific ISSN identifier access for
uniform title authority records (see section 5.D.2.18). However for
bibliographic and cross domain searching, the standard identifier access is
used for ISSN, ISBNs, ISMNs, LCCNs, etc."
I'll try to explain again what I said underneath. ISBNs are identifiers for
manifestations of monographic works. Authority records represent
standardised headings that are shared by multiple works (monographic or
serial). An ISBN cannot therefore appear in an authority record but an ISSN
can in a series title or uniform title.
Also a minor typo - under 3.1. Access Points, first paragraph. Changes
"just as the uses" to "just as they use".
Hope this helps,
From: Mike Taylor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 December 2003 18:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Bath Profile for SRW/CQL
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:29:58 +0100
> From: Janifer Gatenby <[log in to unmask]>
> Within the bibliographic and other domains, the index is identifier
> and ISBN and ISSN are just examples of identifiers. Within the
> authority domain, ISSN is an attribute of Uniform title, i.e. for a
> title series. ISBN would be invalid in this context. I'm not sure
> why in this domain there is not identifier rather than the more
> specific ISSN but perhaps if Larry is listening, he can explain.
Er. I have to admit to not really following this (due, I'm sure to my
inadequate understanding of libraries rather than any deficiency in
your explanation). Does it basically mean that I can remove the note
about ISSN vs. ISBN support? (Basically, just tell me what to do and
I'll do it :-)