Thank you so much for bringing up these questions-- I'm sure other people may be wondering as well.
Also, thanks to Peter Rolla, Judy Kuhagen, Kevin Randall for chiming in... (I have been working on this answer for a while and it was ping, ping, ping while others answered for me!)
See *** below
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bothmann, Robert L
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Provider-Neutral E-Resource Guidelines
Thanks for this!
I have a few friendly comments (that include some RDA critiques).
Page 8, 246 Monographs column "Use indicators: 31"
What is the rationale for this? Not that any OPAC really seems to do this, but 1 for "Note, Added Entry" would make more sense as it would use the second indicator to let us know what kind of varying form of title it actually is.
***We use 246 11 for serials because with the CSR (and ditto for RDA) parallel titles are not transcribed in the remainder of title field (245 $b); whereas monographic catalogers always record the parallel title in the remainder of title field.
A bit of cataloging minutia follows: Note that one no longer needs to indicate what kind of varying form of title it actually is. Catalogers need only use a varying title with a first indicator of one. (246 1_). See P-N Notes area for 246: "Retain from source record, or record provider-specific title variants if deemed important, with or without an explanatory note"
Page 10, 264$a Notes "All online resources are considered published"
RDA does not say this and so far as I can tell there is no RDA equivalent to 9.4B2 in RDA.
We still need some clarification of production vs. publication where it involves electronic resources. For example, the ProQuest digital dissertation is not something I would consider published; it is produced by the university and distributed in electronic form by ProQuest. No actual publication has occurred, only a distribution.
I know this will not be an issue for most resources that fall under PN guidelines. However, the blanket statement to consider all online resources published could be misleading.
***Judy Kuhagen has already answered this.
Page 12, 300$a Monographs "1 online resource".
This one has always irked me the most about PN cataloging. The problem here is that a great many digital resources are not online resources.
Online resource per RDA is "A digital resource accessed by means of hardware and software connections to a communications network." RDA 3.1.5 does say to "record 'online resource' as the carrier type for all online resources."
Given that RDA defines an online resource specifically as one might expect--something that is accessed by means of a communication network--the scope of this really narrows down to a few types of resources. This term works for digital resources that require an active Internet connection. But as soon as you download that e-book to your e-reader and put your e-reader into airplane mode, you are definitely not online.
I know this may seem like picky semantics, but "online" has always meant you have an active data connection. Online resource works for streaming resources. But for non-streaming digital resources that do not require streaming, it is a misnomer.
1 electronic text is sufficient, easily understood, and is not going to cause confusion by suggesting the user must have an active Internet connection to use the resources. All-in-all, this does not sync well with the principle of representation to use this term as a "standard" regardless of whether it is true for that resource or not.
*** I hesitate to bring this up, but don't you think that "1 electronic text" is a bit broad? It definitely applies to direct access materials as well as online materials. Provider-Neutral guidelines only apply to online materials. Once you have downloaded this to your local system, then your record would of course be adapted to provide your local access method. One of the things that we have preached in the P-N guidelines is the requirement (so often ignored, grr) to use only URIs that are universally available.
And then we need to consider the immediate technological future. All things in the "Cloud" is the current bandwagon. Everything that is in the "cloud" is probably going to be, technically, an online resource if you access it one way, or a non-streaming resource when you download it to your device. How long before "online resource" becomes wasted typing and inconsequential information, just like "538 Mode of access: World Wide Web."?
***Good point, however if we are consistent with one form, such as 1 online resource, then it will be just that much easier to change to whatever the current form would be. That is one of the good points of having standards.
In short--"1 online resource" is short-sighted, it's jargon, and it is potentially misleading to the user.
Page 13, 338 Notes
The RDA vocabulary term "online resource" is one of the major failings of RDA as many digital objects are not "online resources" (see RDA glossary). It's sad that RDA allows us to be more descriptive of out-of-date microform and computer cassette technology than with our current technology; and we are going to be very sorry about this sooner than we might guess.
***This reminds me that perhaps we're just not far enough into developing the language terms around the Web yet. I have heard the Inuit language has 76?? Terms for snow, whereas the English language only has a few. I have faith that what we have now in RDA will continue to evolve--it won't be "1 online resource" forever
Page 20, 776 Notes "Print version:, Online version..."
This is supposed to be RDA cataloging! We should be using the vocabulary found in RDA Appendix J. For example: "776 $i Electronic reproduction of (manifestation): " This in and of itself is silly given that there is no reverse option of Print reproduction of (manifestation) for born digital resources. Another failure in RDA as it prefers print over electronic while purporting to be "designed for the digital world". Granted the vocabulary in the appendices is typically not user friendly, but it's what we have. What is the rationale for not using the RDA standard?
***The Serial community has opted to keep the terms Print, Online, CD-ROM, etc. in the 776 field as they conveyed a much greater degree of specificity. And, believe me, once we realized that serials were not going to change in the display text for the 776 field, we happily left the Provider-Neutral guidelines with these same choices.
(One of the P-N editors)
UC San Diego
Metadata & Emerging Technologies Librarian Associate Professor, Library Services Minnesota State University, Mankato
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Philip Schreur
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Provider-Neutral E-Resource Guidelines
With all the excitement of ALA Midwinter, I believe that I forgot to announce that the Provider-Neutral E-Resource MARC Record Guide: P-N/RDA version is now available for your use! It can be found at:
Special thanks to Rebecca Culbertson for all the work she has done to
pull this together. The document is dated "January 1, 2013 version."
Please refer to it for all your P-N work. Enjoy!
Philip E. Schreur
Head, Metadata Department
Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging