I am having a dilemma regarding corporate body name changes and
electronic integrating resources. Sorry for the length of this email,
but I wanted to try to lay out the scenario before soliciting options.
Here's the situation:
The object in question is an online digital collection of Jewish
periodicals in German language, called Compact memory available at:
http://www.compactmemory.de/
There is already a record in OCLC for it, created a little over three
years ago (homepage viewed July 15, 2003). Record number is #52613573.
One of the notes in the original records lists three corporate bodies in
a 550 note responsible for the content, one of them being (minus
diacritics): Sondersammelgebiet Judentum, Stadt- und
Universitatsbibliothek Frankfurt a. M.
The original record had the following 710, which was unestablished:
710 2 Stadt- und Universitatsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main. $b
Sondersammelgebiet Judentum.
I decided, in updating the record, that I would go ahead and establish a
heading for this body. However, upon reviewing the website, I discovered
that the main body had changed its name. The website now listed the body
as: Sondersammelgebiet Judentum, Universitatsbibliothek Johann Christian
Senckenberg Frankfurt a.M. Sure enough, when I checked the authority
file for the main body, I discovered that the main body (the library),
had merged with another body in 2005 and changed name. (See authority
records 6873149 and 00101889 if you want additional details). The
subordinate body name remained unchanged. So the new form of the heading
would be:
710 2 Universitatsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg. $b
Sondersammelgebiet Judentum.
So this brings me to the multiple options I now face in trying to both
update the bib record and establish the authority record for the body.
Bib record:
I can:
A. Update the 550 note with the new version of the name, update the 710
and simply remove all traces of the old version of the name.
B. Update the 550 note with the new version of the name, but also state
that from <2003-2006> it was called the [old form of name], and update
the 710.
C. Update the 550 note with the new version of the name, but also state
that from <2003-2006> it was called the [old form of name], leave old
710 AND add 710 for new form of name.
My feeling is that option A is best. IR records should reflect the most
current iteration of a resource, and information on name changes is
better served in authority records than in the bibliographic record.
Having two added entries for the same corporate body also seems like
overkill. Thoughts?
Authority record:
Here I know that I want to create an authority record with the new form
of the name, but what to do about the old form? I don't have any
publications in hand that use the old form. The only reason I know it
exists is from the original record in 2003, but it's nowhere on the
website anymore. There are additional records in OCLC that use the old
form, but they are all from 2003, and all relate individual periodical
titles from that website, so again, you're not going to find this form
recorded anywhere. I tried to see if I could view the website at the
Internet Archive (www.archive.org), but there seem to have been errors
capturing the site in 2003, so no luck. Maybe that's too much research
anyway. On the other hand, this is a subordinate body, so the
information in the main body record serves as justification for the name
change. So here's the options I see:
A. Establish authority record for current form of name, with 670 citing
the website as I have seen it. No 510 reference to earlier form of name,
no record for earlier form of name. My 670 would look like:
Compact memory website, Dec. 1, 2006 $b Dockumentation page
(Sondersammelgebiet Judentum, Universitatsbibliothek Johann Christian
Senckenberg Frankfurt a. M.)
B. Establish authority record for current form of name, with 670 citing
the website as I have seen it. Add information in the 670 as according
to LCRI 26.3B-C 1b, which states: "If the related boy is not established
in the catalog against which the searching and cataloging is performed
and it is not likely it will ever be needed, record data about the for
the heading being established ..." My 670 would like something like:
Compact memory website, Dec. 1, 2006 $b Dockumentation page
(Sondersammelgebiet Judentum, Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian
Senckenberg Frankfurt a. M.) formerly on website, July 15, 2003
(Sondersammelgebiet Judentum, Stadt- und Universitatsbibliothek
Frankfurt a. M. [no longer on site])
I can't really say [no publs. found in OCLC] since there are records in
OCLC for individual serial titles in the collection which use the old
form of the name, but that form of the name has been replaced on the
website for those publications as well. There would be no authority
record for the earlier form of the name.
C. Establish authority records for both forms of the name, with the 670s
citing the website as I have seen it in the case of the current heading
and as it looked in 2003, for the earlier heading. The 670 for the
current heading would be the same as option A, and 670 for the earlier
heading would look something like:
Compact memory website, July 15, 2003 $b (Sondersammelgebiet Judentum,
Stadt- und Universitatsbibliothek Frankfurt a. M.)
Now, neither I nor anyone else will be able to prove this is indeed what
was on the website July 15, 2003, but I just take the original
cataloging library's word for it. The two records would then be
connected by 510 references.
Overall I prefer option C for the authority records. I am positive the
name changed, since this is a subordinate body, and the two records make
it easy for others to follow the name change. Plus there's those other
records in OCLC with the older form of the name (which are cataloged as
ceased publication serials, not IRs, so would not normally be updated).
And it allows me to apply option A in the bib record, which keeps the
bib record clear of authority information, while still allowing users
who search under the old form of the name to find the new record.
Information simply placed in the 670 wouldn't be searchable. But, in
establishing the earlier form of the name, I would be creating a record
without having the information in an item at hand (of course no one else
has an appropriate item at hand, since the item has morphed over time).
Thoughts?
Kristin
--
Kristin Martin
Electronic Resources Cataloger
Catalog Department
CB# 3914, Davis Library
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-8890
Phone: (919) 962-0153
Fax: (919) 962-4450
Email: [log in to unmask]
|