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.
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.
> 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
>> 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.