On 5/26/15 7:14 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>>> 4)  The ISSN of a series is an identifier of the series, not an 
>>> identifier of a manifestation in which the ISSN appears. 0277-786X 
>>> is the ISSN of the SPIE proceedings series:  it does not identify 
>>> volume 2357 of the series.
>> Yes, and it makes sense that the information about the series would 
>> *not* be present in the description of the manifestation, but in the 
>> description of the series. In past cataloging practice, this 
>> information was included in the record for the manifestation because 
>> linking between entities was not possible (e.g. in the card catalog), 
>> and the series data was there for a person with a brain to follow up on.
>>
>> Note that the ISSN would rarely be in a transcribed series statement, 
>> if one is included in the description of the manifestation. Any 
>> transcribed information is about the manifestation, and should not be 
>> considered linking information. (e.g. 490 vs. 830) (Transcribed data 
>> is text that is intended to be displayed to the human reader.)
>
> Karen,
>
> ISSN is always recorded in the series statement (490 $x) when it is 
> present on a manifestation.  If the ISSN on the manifestation is 
> incorrect or inappropriate, it is still transcribed as found. This is 
> not a change from AACR2 practice.
>
> RDA 2.12.8.3  Recording the ISSN of a Series
> Transcribe the ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) of a series 
> as it appears on the source of information.
>
> RDA 2.12.16.3  Recording the ISSN of a Subseries
> Transcribe the ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) of a 
> subseries as it appears on the source of information.
>
> ISSN is not a core element in RDA manifestation descriptions, but it 
> is a core element for the PCC.

Adam, I think you miss my point. My point is that series information 
belongs in the series description linked to the manifestation or 
instance. It is a bibliographic relationship.  I think you are looking 
at the literal (and perhaps pedantic) rules of the cataloging code 
rather than thinking about functionality. For example, because 
transcription isn't linking data (precisely because it is text), then 
there is no need for a separate subfield $x for this data in a statement 
carrying transcribed text. If you want to indicate to other experts that 
the piece as a mistaken ISSN, surely there is a better place for that 
than in a field destined for a user display.

I also think there is a mis-conception that separate MARC subfields make 
the data machine-actionable. That is absolutely not the case. "$d c1970" 
or "$d 2015" isn't typed data, it's text. Assuming you have a standard 
formatted date elsewhere in your data, what is gained by this subfield? 
A lot of the inter-field distinctions made in MARC have no real 
functionality that I can see, and we should re-think that aspect of our 
bibliographic description. As Thomas Berger said in an other thread:

> I mean, there is not really much difference between
>
> 245 $a Hamlet, prince of Denmark
> 245 $a Hamlet. Prince of Denmark
> or
> 245 $a Hamlet :$b Prince of Denmark

Unless you can point to a convincing functional reason for the $b, it's 
just overhead with no value.

Sorry, but I really see a lot of "rote-ness" in the cataloging rules, 
and very little that links them to catalog functionality. And, my 
{$deity}, Lubetzky complained about this very thing in 1946, and we 
still haven't created functional cataloging rules.

kc
>
>
> It's important not to confuse what's recorded as manifestation 
> information (series statement elements specified in chapter 2 of RDA 
> and recorded in 490 in MARC) and whole-part work relationships that 
> are recorded as authorized series access points in MARC 8XX and are 
> covered by other chapters in RDA (i.e., chapter 6 for a series as a 
> work, including ISSN as a work identifier, and chapters 24-26 for 
> relationships, including 24.6 for numbering of part).   Note that 
> Numbering within Series (2.12.9) is NOT the same element as Numbering 
> of Part (24.6).  One is a manifestation attribute, the other is used 
> as the name of the part of a work when a relationship is being 
> recorded for that part.  The difficultly with all this is that in many 
> cases, a particular work was only published once, will only ever be 
> published once, so if the one and only manifestation of that work 
> happened to be in a series, it does make sense to treat the work as 
> being in a particular series (i.e., a work to work whole-part 
> relationship). But as Joe Kiegel demonstrated with his Hamlet example, 
> as soon as different manifestations of an expression of a work appear 
> in different series, the relationship really isn't work to work 
> anymore, it's manifestation to work.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600