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 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.
> 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"
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net