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 2013

PCCLIST January 2013

Subject:

Re: Provider-Neutral E-Resource Guidelines

From:

"Bothmann, Robert L" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:19:00 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (119 lines)

Thanks for the context answers--this helps.

I always wish we had footnotes and such in the RDA PS from LC/PCC  and other PCC documents that spell out some of the reasoning. Not only is it helpful now, it will be really helpful for researchers in the future who want to know more about why we did things the way we did.

***********************************
Robert Bothmann
Metadata & Emerging Technologies Librarian
Associate Professor, Library Services
Minnesota State University, Mankato


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Culbertson, Rebecca
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Provider-Neutral E-Resource Guidelines

Bobby,

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

-----Original Message-----
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.

Becky Culbertson
(One of the P-N editors)
UC San Diego


Thanks,
Bobby Bothmann


***********************************
Robert Bothmann
Metadata & Emerging Technologies Librarian Associate Professor, Library Services Minnesota State University, Mankato


-----Original Message-----
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

Everyone,

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:

http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PN-RDA-Combined.docx

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

--
Philip E. Schreur
Head, Metadata Department
Stanford University
Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging
650-723-2454
650-725-1120 (fax)

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

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