LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  January 2007

PCCLIST January 2007

Subject:

Re: ALA meeting - Cataloging locally digitized resources

From:

Celine Noel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:09:21 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (332 lines)

Thanks, Renette. I can see that you all have given this a lot of
thought and that your needs are somewhat different from other
non-preservation needs.

Because of this, I'm not sure that we are understanding each other so
I've added a few more comments below and then will wait to hear the
results of the meeting. Think of this as fodder for discussion.

Renette Davis wrote:

> Thanks, Celine, for your comments. I'm going to try to give some
> background on how and why it was decided to use the 533 on print
> version records when using the single record approach, for anyone who
> might be interested.
>
> First of all, there are already a number of print version records in
> the Registry of Digital Masters with 533, and I think you're right, it
> is very difficult to interpret what version these records are. For
> examples see OCLC #642567, 17604932, and 19823978.
>
These records are taking the single record approach to new lengths! As
one of my colleagues put it: "it looks like a poor man's FRBR record!"
It's hard to know what a public user would make of these, but maybe as
long as there's a URL, it won't matter.

> Early on in our discussions, Robert Bremer from OCLC said that
> catalogers are seeing a 533 reproduction note in print version records
> and assuming that the record really represents the electronic
> reproduction itself. As a result, they are inputting duplicate print
> version records.

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. Outside of the
preservation world, records with 533 fields have always represented only
the reproduction. Someone cataloging the original is not supposed to
use a record with a 533 field, but input a new record for the print. Of
course this way of defining and describing a reproduction predates the
current "single record for multiple formats" environment so it used to
be understood that one record represented one format, and in records
with a 533, that format was the reproduction.

Now that single records can represent more than one format and also
happen to look a lot like the old reproduction records, the waters are
very muddied, indeed. I'm not against redefining the 533 field in the
single record environment, but just pointing out that while a revised
533 note looks like a minor and harmless change, it actually represents
a MAJOR change for many of us.

What you're really saying is: from now on, any record with a 533
represents both the print and the reproduction. In the preservation
environment, this makes sense. In the wider world of cataloging,
libraries cataloging a reproduction are often doing it because they
don't have the original. What would a record for a reproduction-only
look like? Ironically, we might be forced to go back to following
AACR2, basing the description on the reproduction alone and adding a
note like a 534 to describe the original! Do we know yet what RDA is
going to say about reproductions and single records?

>
> We talked some about using different wording in the subfield a, such
> as "Also available as electronic reproduction" rather than "Electronic
> reproduction" on the print version records if using a single record
> approach. The thought was that this would make it more clear that the
> record itself is not for the electronic version.
>
> We also experimented with some other possibilities. We considered
> adding detailed information to the 530, but as you pointed out, it
> doesn't have good subfielding like the 533. Subfields b, c, and d
> could not be defined in the 530 as they are in the 533 because they
> are already defined for other purposes in the 530.
>
> Another idea was to use holdings to give details about the electronic
> reproduction. We experimented with 843, which is the holdings
> equivalent to bibliographic field 533. At the present time, however,
> there are a number of issues in implementing the holdings approach.
> Holdings records are often not indexed or easily integrated with
> bibliographic records, and only bibliographic records are available
> for OAI harvesting, which is a goal for digital registry records.
>
> Another possibility was to use a 776 in the print version record to
> indicate the existence of, and give details about, the electronic
> version. It would not point to an electronic version record, because
> there would be no electronic version record if the single record
> approach was being used, but rather it would be used to give details
> about the electronic reproduction.
>
> However, there were some problems with using the 776. In addition, it
> is expected that at some time in the future, a holdings approach may
> be able to be used. The other digital registry fields, 533, 538, 583,
> and 856 are all valid in the holdings format, but the 776 is not.
> Therefore, the Digital Library Federation Registry of Digital Masters
> Working Group decided that 533 was the best way to go.
>
> It was decided that subfield a should include wording like "Also
> available as electronic reproduction" rather than "Electronic
> reproduction" in the print version record when using a single record
> approach, to help make it clear that this is not the electronic
> version record. When using a separate record approach, the wording in
> the electronic version record would be "Electronic reproduction."
>
> To answer your question about why we are using a 533 in the electronic
> version record when using a separate record approach, that has been in
> the Registry of Digital Masters Record Creation Guidelines - available
> at http://www.diglib.org/collections/reg/DigRegGuide.htm - all along.
> The draft document Guidance for Cataloging Locally Digitized Resources
> applies to resources that already exist in our local institutions
> which we are digitizing for preservation purposes, so they clearly are
> reproductions. We didn't even discuss the possibility of not following
> LCRI 1.11A for these.
>
> Thanks for pointing out the relevant documentation from OCLC and LC. I
> am assuming that if these guidelines are accepted, that documentation
> would be revised.
>
> This draft document, which was an attempt to expand on the DLF Record
> Creation Guidelines, was a cooperative effort between members of
> CONSER, a CIC Digital Resources Cataloging Task Group, the ALA/PARS
> Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group, the DLF
> Registry of Digital Masters Working Group, and staff from the Library
> of Congress and OCLC. Our goal has been to come up with something that
> everyone can live with, so if other people on this list have comments,
> we definitely want to hear them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Renette
>
>
> At 11:36 AM 1/5/2007, you wrote:
>
>> Hi Renette,
>>
>> Since I won't be able to attend the meeting, I'm sending comments to
>> you now.
>>
>> This is especially on your category "Monograph - Single record
>> approach." If I am understanding you correctly, you are advocating
>> use of the 533 to note the availability of an electronic reproduction
>> on a record also meant to represent a print edition. In my
>> experience, this is not the way the 533 has been used in monograph
>> records, at least in OCLC. Monograph records with a 533 field are
>> meant to represent ONLY the reproduction; the fact that the original
>> print version is described in the body of the record is just a
>> cataloging shortcut.
>> The development by the Library of Congress of this 533 model for
>> reproductions dates back to microform reproductions and pre-dates the
>> single-record approach that is now being used to represent
>> print/electronic editions with one record.
>>
>>
>> There's no question that this is now a very muddled situation but
>> documentation by OCLC and LC still indicate that records with 533
>> fields are not meant to be single records representing multiple
>> versions. (That being said, however, LC is obviously ambivalent about
>> this as can be seen in the last sentence of the LCRI 1.11A below).
>> Up to now, a quick way to tell "reproduction-only records" from
>> "single records" is that reproduction records use field 533 to
>> describe the other format, while single records use a 530. The
>> problem here is that the 530 used in the single record doesn't have
>> as good subfielding for description details as the 533 does so I can
>> see why it might not meet your needs.
>>
>>
>> I know that all this is in flux and I personally have never liked the
>> 533 reproduction model, so I'm not defending it. It's just that I'm
>> concerned that records for various permutations of electronic
>> resources are proliferating in OCLC and it is getting more and more
>> difficult to interpret what version(s) a record represents. I'm also
>> concerned about your suggested use of the 533 in a separate record
>> for the monographic electronic edition. If you are describing the
>> digitized version in its own record, wouldn't the details of that
>> version be part of the basic record and not require a 533? I'm
>> afraid a looser use of 533 will only add to the confusion unless OCLC
>> rethinks its "master record" approach.
>>
>>
>> It may be that the real problem here is that the 533 field has been
>> turned into an edition identifier and given a role and importance far
>> beyond that of a descriptive note, making it difficult to reclaim it
>> now as simply descriptive information. As an alternative, could
>> OCLC's Local Holdings functionality be tapped into for piece-specific
>> preservation detail
>> (<http://www.oclc.org/localholdings/default.htm>http://www.oclc.org/localholdings/default.htm)?
>>
>>
>> Anyway, I've given below some existing documentation on the use of
>> the 533 that would need clarification for this new use of 533 (I've
>> bolded the key sentences).
>>
>> Celine Noel
>> UNC-Chapel Hill
>>
>>
>> --*From OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards, Field 533*
>> (<http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/5xx/533.shtm>http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/5xx/533.shtm):
>>
>> For *electronic resources*, use field 533 for information describing
>> a remotely accessed electronic reproduction of a work previously
>> published in printed form, including electronic books, as outlined in
>> Library of Congress Rule Interpretation 1.11A. *Apply this practice
>> only when the reproduction manifestation is represented by its own
>> bibliographic record, separate from any record for the original print
>> version.
>>
>> ***********************
>> *--*LCRI 1.11A*:
>> Non-Microform Reproductions
>> LC practice: Follow these guidelines for reproductions of previously
>> existing materials that are made for: preservation purposes in
>> formats other than microforms; non-microform dissertations and other
>> reproductions produced "on demand"; and, electronic reproductions.
>> *These guidelines identify the data elements to be used in the record
>> for the reproduction, separate from the record for the original.* For
>> some electronic reproductions, however, LC may delineate details of
>> the reproduction on the record for the original manifestation rather
>> than create a separate record for the reproduction. LC catalogers
>> should consult "Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic
>> Resources" <http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/dcmb19_4.html> for more
>> information (other cataloging agencies may have developed their own
>> guidelines in this regard).
>>
>> *************************
>> --*Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC coding guidelines*
>> (<http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresources/default.htm>http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresources/default.htm):
>>
>>
>> >>Option 2: *Single record with a reference to the electronic item*
>>
>> You may create a record for the nonelectronic version and add an
>> annotation about the existence of and access to the electronic
>> version. The nonelectronic version is the primary version and the
>> electronic copy is secondary.
>>
>> 1. Select the workform based on the current definition of "Type" and
>> the primary aspect of the item.
>> 2. Do not input field 006 for the electronic version.
>> 3. Do not code "Form of Item"(008/23, 008/29, 006/06, or 006/12,
>> depending on bibliographic format) for the electronic version.
>> 4. Optionally, include field 007.
>> 5. *Note the availability of the electronic version in field 530.*
>>
>> >>*Electronic Reproductions of Items Previously Published in Print Form*
>>
>> In May 2000, the Library of Congress issued a revised version of LC
>> Rule Interpretation 1.11A. The revision expands LC's "microform
>> exception" to AACR2, outlined in the related LCRI for Chapter 11, to
>> include remotely accessed electronic reproductions of works
>> previously published in printed form (including electronic books).
>> *This practice applies only when the reproduction manifestation is
>> represented by its own bibliographic record, separate from any record
>> for the original.*
>>
>> ... Give in a single note (533 field) all other details relating to
>> the reproduction and its publication/availability, including format
>> of the reproduction, dates of publication and/or sequential
>> designation of issues reproduced (for serials), place and name of the
>> agency responsible for the reproduction, date of the reproduction,
>> physical description of the reproduction if different from the
>> original, series statement of the reproduction (if applicable), notes
>> relating to the reproduction (if applicable).
>>
>> ***************************
>> --*OCLC's When to Input a New Record*
>> (<http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/input/default.shtm>http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/input/default.shtm)
>>
>>
>>
>> 533 Reproduction Note
>>
>>
>> Absence or presence of field justifies a new record. Having the
>> information in field 500 instead, does not justify a new record.
>>
>>
>> [I translate this as: If you have the original item, do not use a
>> record with a 533 reproduction note; if you have the reproduction, do
>> not use a record that doesn't have a 533]
>>
>>
>> ***********************
>>
>> Renette Davis wrote:
>>
>>> Those of you who are digitizing resources in your local institutions
>>> and trying to figure out how to get the records into the Registry of
>>> Digital Masters may be interested in attending the following meeting.
>>>
>>> Renette Davis
>>>
>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> ALCTS/PARS
>>> Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group
>>> Saturday, January 20, 2007: 4-6pm
>>> 2B WCC (Convention Center)
>>>
>>>
>>> Guidance for Cataloging Locally Digitized Resources for the Registry
>>> of Digital Masters
>>>
>>> The program will include:
>>>
>>> 1) Background on the Registry of Digital Masters and MARC fields
>>> used in digital registry records;
>>>
>>> 2) Discussion of the draft document, "Guidance for Cataloging
>>> Locally Digitized Resources"
>>> <http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~rd13/CIC/Guidance.html>http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~rd13/CIC/Guidance.html
>>>
>>>
>>> (This document has been developed by a group comprising members
>>> from: CONSER, CIC Heads of Cataloging, CIC Heads of Preservation,
>>> the PARS Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group,
>>> the DLF Registry of Digital Masters Working Group, and staff from
>>> the Library of Congress and OCLC.)
>>>
>>> Agenda
>>>
>>> Welcome and announcements Tyra Grant, Interest
>>> Group co-chair (University of Kansas)
>>> Overview and background Sherry Byrne
>>> (University of Chicago)
>>> Introduction to the Digital Registry Glenn Patton (OCLC)
>>> Introduction to the 583 field Debra McKern
>>> (Library of Congress)
>>> Cataloging guidelines to date Renette Davis
>>> (University of Chicago)
>>> Harvard practice and perspective Steven Riel (Harvard)
>>> Questions and discussion All speakers above
>>> plus Rebecca Guenther (Library of Congress)
>>
>>

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

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