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:

Proportional 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:

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:05:22 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (228 lines)

Thanks, Renette for your further comments.  I now see why I 
misunderstood the comments from Robert Bremer that you mentioned:  I 
thought his comments referred to reproduction records being added to 
Worldcat when what he meant was reproduction records were being added to 
the Digital Registry on the same assumptions/guidelines as those in 
Worldcat, hence the duplicate records!

Also, thanks for pointing to the RDA FAQ.  I'm having a hard time 
keeping up with RDA developments but I had heard that there was 
opposition to single records for FRBR reasons.  Locally, we too are 
evaluating single records again.  Our current campus policy is to use 
single records whenever possible, but we've had to create more and more 
exceptions recently and are using fewer single records than we used to.  
Still, the savings in time can be very persuasive and public services 
staff like single records, so I think you are right in trying to 
accommodate single records in your guidelines.

--Celine


Renette Davis wrote:

> Thanks again, Celine, for your comments. I'm going to continue the 
> discussion by interspersing some comments below, preceded by RD. I'm 
> really glad to have some input from the PCC monographic cataloging 
> perspective. We've had some PCC participation from the serials side 
> with people from CONSER on the group, and I imagine some of the CIC 
> cataloging people are PCC members, but I think it's good to have the 
> issues discussed on this list as well.
>
> I don't think this is going to work unless we have broad participation 
> in the discussion and come up with something that everybody can live 
> with. If anybody thinks we should take the discussion off this list, 
> let me know, and I'll add Celine (and anybody else who is interested) 
> to the smaller group that has been discussing these guidelines. The 
> goal of that group has been to come up with some guidelines that other 
> people can then react to. Hopefully we will eventually come up with 
> something that everyone can live with.
>
> Renette
>
> At 11:09 AM 1/10/2007, you wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> RD - Yes, "Poor man's FRBR record" is probably a good description! :-) 
> As you might guess, we had a lot of problems coming up with guidelines 
> for the single record approach, and there was a time when I was ready 
> to send a message to the group asking if we REALLY want to be 
> promoting the single record approach. Before doing that, though, I ran 
> the idea by colleagues here at the University of Chicago (we use the 
> single record approach) and there was strong objection to moving to a 
> separate record approach here, so I didn't send out the message. The 
> fact is that there are a number of institutions, including the Library 
> of Congress, who use a single record approach by policy, so what we 
> have tried to do is come up with guidelines for those who use a single 
> record approach as well as guidelines for those who use a separate 
> record approach. By the way, the records that I pointed out above were 
> created before we started working on these guidelines, and the 533s 
> are not worded in the manner that we are recommending they be worded 
> in the guidelines. We are recommending using different wording in 
> subfield a in the 533 for the single record approach, which will 
> hopefully make it more clear that this is a print version record to 
> which information about the electronic version has been added rather 
> than a reproduction record itself.
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> RD - This has been true in the past, which is why Robert said that the 
> records which had been added to the digital registry that were print 
> version records to which a 533 had been added were causing problems. I 
> had a hard time with those records myself when I first started looking 
> at digital registry records. That's the reason we are suggesting that 
> if you are using a single record approach, adding digital registry 
> information to the print version record, you should use something like 
> "Also available as electronic reproduction" instead of "Electronic 
> reproduction" in subfield a of the 533.  We are hoping that "Also 
> available as electronic reproduction" would be a clue that this is a 
> print version record, and "Electronic reproduction" could continue to 
> be a clue that it is an electronic version record.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> RD - I agree. I don't know if we can ever make the water clear, but 
> hopefully we can un-muddy it somewhat.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> RD - Not really. A record with a 533 could represent both the print 
> and reproduction or it could represent only the reproduction. If the 
> subfield a says something like "Also available as electronic 
> reproduction" the record represents both the print and the 
> reproduction. If it says "Electronic reproduction" then it represents 
> only the reproduction. (Actually, because of LCRI 1.11A, the record 
> describes the print with reproduction information in the 533, but the 
> record itself is an electronic version record.) Maybe I should restate 
> this to make it more clear. If the subfield a says something like 
> "Also available as electronic reproduction", it is a print version 
> record, using the single record approach to add information about the 
> electronic version to the print version record. If the subfield a says 
> "Electronic reproduction" it is an electronic version record, using 
> the separate record approach and representing the reproduction. (If it 
> is a serial, it might also represent other electronic versions because 
> we will be adding information about these reproductions to the 
> aggregator neutral record when using a separate record approach.)
>
>> 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?
>
>
> RD - A record for only the reproduction would look the same as it does 
> now, i.e., a library that doesn't have the original would only have an 
> electronic version record for the reproduction. It would either 
> describe the original with reproduction information in 533 if the 
> library is following LCRI 1.11A, or it would describe the reproduction 
> with information about the original in 534 if the library is following 
> AACR2. If this is a resource that was digitized by one of our 
> libraries, and if the library which digitized the item used a separate 
> record approach, there would be an electronic version record that the 
> library which doesn't have the original could use. If the library 
> which digitized the item used a single record approach, then the 
> library which doesn't have the original would have to create an 
> electronic version record. I personally think this is an argument for 
> always using a separate record approach for things that we digitize 
> locally, but I don't think I have the energy to pursue that argument 
> right now.
>
>>  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?
>
>
> RD - The RDA FAQ says:
>
> 4.12 How will multiple manifestations of the same title be handled in 
> RDA (the "multiple versions" issue)? Will RDA recommend that we use 
> one bibliographic record for all manifestations of the same title, 
> will it recommend that we use a separate bibliographic record for each 
> manifestation of a title, or both?
>
> These questions address the current practices of how we catalogue 
> multiple manifestations of the same title. There are two primary 
> techniques in use for doing this. The first is to create a separate 
> bibliographic record for each manifestation of a work (as in AACR2). 
> The second involves using the same bibliographic record (most often 
> that of the print manifestation) for all manifestations of a title.
>
> RDA is heavily based on the FRBR (Functional Requirements for 
> Bibliographic Records) model. There are four entity levels in FRBR's 
> Group 1 - work, expression, manifestation, and item - that point to 
> the creation of a separate record for each manifestation of a work or 
> expression. Therefore, RDA will follow the principle of creating a 
> record for each manifestation of a title.
>
> The technique of using a single record for all manifestations of a 
> work or expression was developed before the FRBR model was created. 
> Because of this, a cataloguer could not easily show the relationships 
> between multiple manifestations of the same title using separate 
> bibliographic records. In using the FRBR model, RDA will provide 
> guidance on collocation at the expression and work levels through 
> citations (i.e., uniform titles). In large part, this is precisely 
> what the single record approach has attempted to accomplish. The 
> solution in taking advantage of the FRBR model, however, is in 
> database structures rather than in the rules themselves.
>
> Although the practice of describing multiple manifestations on a 
> single record is widely used, the JSC sees it as one that prevents 
> agencies from sharing data effectively and from taking advantage of 
> FRBR. While RDA will recommend the use of one record for each 
> manifestation, the JSC has agreed that the technique of using a single 
> record for multiple manifestations of the same title will be mentioned 
> in RDA's General Introduction. The new code will not provide any 
> specific guidance for its use in the body of the rules, however.

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

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