On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 08:06, Deborah Fritz wrote:
> Karen,
>
> Actually, aren't there instances where there might not be just "one
> 'correct' ISBN"?  Isn't it quite possible for two or more 'correct'
> ISBN to legitimately share a bibliographic record, e.g., paperback,
> hardbound, and library binding?

Well, that seems to be what some of us were arguing at the last meeting
where this proposal came up. "Legitimately share a bibliographic record"
is relative to what rules one is using to create the records, and
whether a paperback and hardback are given separate records or share a
record. In any case, legitimate or no, there are going to be records
with multiple ISBNs that represent different editions of a work.

>
> I agree that it would be great if the 10-digit/13-digit ISBN situation
> could be clearly explained somewhere in the standards instead of
> simply in a series of guidelines from various organizations. I
> suppose, though, that we are getting into content here, rather than
> coding?

No, I think we *are* talking about coding. Both ISBNs exist. Sometimes
both will be in a record. The question is how they will be coded in the
record.

> So, if we have two legitmate ISBNs in the record that are essentially
> the same ISBN, they will both go in $a, and, currently, the only way
> to tell that they are essentially the same is the fact that they look
> the same except for the prefix and check-digit.

"look the same" is not a data processing concept. If you have two or
three or six ISBNs on a record and you want to know how many distinct
ISBNs you have, you would have to do a comparison of them all to each
other in order to determine if you have any 10/13 pairs. I'd rather see
them coded as equivalent, and in the same 020. This would also give us
an easy outlet for any system wanting to create equivalent 10/13 pairs
for display.

>
> Do you think it might be a good idea, for now, to add the above
> examples under the proposed 020$a and 020$y respectively? Then, maybe,
> at some time, somebody could do some sort of 10-digit/13-digit
> explanation to go under Input Conventions--ISBN Structure?

I'd rather wait until we have the discussion of what standard we will
use for 10/13-digit ISBNs. Although LoC has designated its solution for
the moment (and OCLC theirs, and RLG theirs...etc), I don't feel like
we've talked about where these ISBNs *should* go in the record, and
whether 10-digit ISBNs and 13-digit ISBNs should be treated the same or
not.

Note that there will be a program on Monday morning at ALA Boston about
vendor concerns regarding the 13-digit ISBN:

"The ALCTS PVLR (Publisher-Vendor-Library Relations) Interest Group is
hosting an open forum at ALA Midwinter.

The Impact of ISBN-13 on Publishers, Vendors, and Libraries:
Monday, January 17, 9:30 - 11:00 AM, Westin Copley Place, Essex South."

kc


>
> Deborah
>
> Karen Coyle wrote:
> > It seems that since DP04 is attempting to sort out the variety of
> > ISBNs
> > that can appear on an item (and get it down to one "correct" ISBN)
> > that
> > it must also decide what to do with the 13-digit ISBNs that are now
> > being created. These are being created by LC as "duplicate" 020
> > fields,
> > one with the 10-digit ISBN and one with the 13-digit ISBN. Currently
> > there is no way to know that these two fields represent the same
> > number,
> > but in different "versions."
> >
> > Note that different systems are handling the 13-digit ISBN
> > differently.
> > A representative list of solutions can by found in NISO's FAQ:
> >
> >   http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/ISBN.html#FAQ
> >
> > Since we are destined to have both ISBN versions in our catalogs for
> > a
> > long time (not to mention in our libraries forever!), we really need
> > to
> > address this from a standards point of view. It's not enough to just
> > look at the length of the ISBN -- we need to know when we have two
> > legitimate ISBNs in the record that are essentially the same ISBN.
> > This
> > would be a different case from a record with a 13-digit ISBN and a
> > different 10-digit ISBN. In that case, one of them should be
> > relegated
> > to the 020 $y.
> --
> Deborah Fritz
> MARC Database Consultant
> The MARC of Quality --> http://www.marcofquality.com/
> Voice/Fax: (321) 676-1904
>
--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------