LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@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

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  May 2015

BIBFRAME May 2015

Subject:

Re: Series in BIBFRAME

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 29 May 2015 10:29:24 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (67 lines)

On 5/29/15 7:18 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> In my personal opinion, RDA is smart, because the policy is to capture 
> the ISSN "as is", but it does not expect the ISSN as an identifier at all.

Yet if you display the ISSN in the catalog, what are you telling catalog 
users? Nothing says "do-not-follow" on that entry. The ISSN is a known 
identifier. What says: but *this* ISSN isn't an identifier, even though 
usually when you see it, it is. Users aren't going to know how RDA 
defines the ISSN of a series.

The need for transcription as identification and the need of the user 
who is seeking resources are not one and the same. As I asked somewhere 
above, why on earth would you display a known or potentially erroneous 
ISSN to an "average user" -- and as the ISSN for the resource? This 
seems to me to be inventory information that could be of interest to a 
few experts and the collection development librarians who need to know 
EXACTLY what edition they own. But it is deceptive to display it to 
catalog users as if they should make use of the information in their 
catalog search.

Catalog users who are not themselves catalogers do not know what is and 
what isn't transcribed. The display of transcribed data has to be seen 
in light of the original limitations of the 3x5 card, where there would 
not have been a place for both transcribed and provided information. 
With the use of machine-readable data, we aren't limited in what 
information we can provide, nor in the number of different uses we can 
serve. There is no reason why certain information that is important for 
inventory or collection development has to predominate over information 
that is needed by the naive user. A machine-readable record can have as 
many different fields as you'd like, and can produce different displays 
for different users or uses.

It's also quite telling, to me, that there is no attempt to understand 
the return on investment of cataloging rules. What does it cost to make 
decisions that are of use to only a small number of catalog users? How 
often is that data actually used/useful? If it is rarely used, is there 
a less expensive way that we can satisfy that minority need?

With no data on the facts of catalog use, the cataloging rules look a 
lot more like a religious text than an application of science.

kc

>
> For example, there are serials which were transferred from one 
> publisher to another, the serial title changes, but ISSN does not. It 
> means, there can be more than one manifestation for an ISSN. Example: 
> ISSN 1053-6566
>
> Building serial descriptions is very hard, it means to capture the 
> complete publication statement alongside ISSN, so the publication 
> history of a journal can be recorded.
>
> So I think bf:issn is wrong with regard to the statement that bf:issn 
> is an identifier http://bibframe.org/vocab/identifier.html, defined by 
> "Number or code that uniquely identifies an entity"
>
> Best,
>
> Jörg

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

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

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
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager