Adam replied:

>> Make whatever other references are judged useful to get users to the
>> tracings.

"I wholeheartedly agree that a liberalization of the rules and 
restrictions on making references would serve users well.  We cannot 
expect non-catalogers to know that certain kinds of references are not 
made, even when it's highly likely that users search under them.  A good 
example is when the series title proper is in one language but the 
authorized qualifier used is in another ... "

I would like to add that our current restrictions on references also are a 
hindrance to certain aspects of machine processing. Some of the rules on 
references I think are based on the assumption a human brain will be 
looking at them (possibly, a human brain that knows more about cataloging 
than the average user). But we have automated many parts of authority 
control, so we also need references that are machine-friendly, so headings 
get flipped when they need to be, and headings that shouldn't be flipped, 
don't get flipped.

************
Diana Brooking             (206) 543-8405
Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA  98195-2900

On Wed, 31 May 2006, Adam L. Schiff wrote:

> Just back today from a short (too short!!) vacation.  I'm adding some 
> comments on Amy's comments from last week, which I'll try to do without 
> flaming ;-)
>
>> If there is a new, distinctive series title to be established, do so with
>> the macro, reprogrammed so that t it won't supply a source for the series
>> statement.   Does it really matter whether the statement comes from the
>> series t.p., the t.p., or the cover?   A title is a title ...
>
> I think the answer to Amy's question depends on what "really" means.  The 
> current rules for selecting the series title proper prescribe a preferred 
> order of sources, with the series t.p. being first, the t.p. being second, 
> etc.  Having the exact information of which source has been selected is 
> probably necessary only when the form of the series title varies between or 
> among sources.  Having the information enables us to retrospectively figure 
> out occasional problems that may arise regarding series.  Not having the 
> source is much more likely to require later additional effort retrieving 
> issues of a series if a question arises than having the information present 
> in the authority record right from the start would.
>
> If we are going to eliminate recording the source of the series title, then 
> why would we continue to bother to record the source of an author's name, 
> which usually is taken from the t.p.?  I don't think it's too much of an 
> effort to correct the source "ser. t.p." that is inserted automatically by 
> the OCLC macro if it is not the actual source of the series title.
>
>
>> If the title is not distinctive, add the AACR2 form of some distinguishing
>> body in ()'s.
>
> Generally speaking, I have no problem with this.  Except that some times 
> adding a body is not sufficient to make the title distinctive and provisions 
> would need to be in place to add something different or something in addition 
> to make it distinctive.
>
>> If there are variant titles, either in one publication or over time, use
>> judgment about whether there is a name change or not, and either make
>> cross references or another AR linked with see also's.   Do not agonize
>> between these two choices--either works in guiding users to tracings.
>
> Since series can be cataloged as serials, the rules for treating title 
> changes must be the same.  I happen to think consistency in application of 
> title change rules is important, so here I personally think that some 
> agonizing is necessary.  This is particularly true for those libraries that 
> create both a bibliographic record for the series cataloged as a serial AND 
> individual records for the parts of the series.  The series access points and 
> decisions about major title changes must be identical.
>
>> Make whatever other references are judged useful to get users to the
>> tracings.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree that a liberalization of the rules and restrictions on 
> making references would serve users well.  We cannot expect non-catalogers to 
> know that certain kinds of references are not made, even when it's highly 
> likely that users search under them.  A good example is when the series title 
> proper is in one language but the authorized qualifier used is in another, 
> e.g.
>
> Report (Brottsforebyggande radet (Sweden))
>
> In a case like above, I think a reference such as
>
> Report (National Swedish Council for Crime Prevention)
>  and/or
> Report (National Council for Crime Prevention (Sweden))
>
> would actually be very useful references to have in our catalogs to help 
> users, although they are references that are not currently permitted by NACO.
>
>
>> Add the AR to the authority file, and move on.
>
> And a corollary to this might be that if creating a series authority is going 
> to cause a lot of agonizing and take several hours of a cataloger's time, 
> then perhaps the effort in establishing that heading is not warranted and the 
> bib. record should not be contributed as a BIBCO record.
> Catalogers should be empowered to judge for themselves when they would be 
> better spending that time creating other bib. records and authorities.
>
>
> --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]           * **************************************
>