This is one of a series of messages emanating from the University of
California, San Diego Cataloging Committee discussion of proposals and
discussion papers on the agenda of MARBI at Midwinter.
We are sympathetic to the need to define a fixed field code to indicate that
the resource described in a record is electronic. We have two small concerns.
Digital atlases. One of the proposed positions in the Maps format for the new
code is 008/25 (Type of cartographic material). While proposal 95-9 stated
that none of the current definitions apply to digital items, that is no longer
true. The redefinition of Leader/06 to encompass all cartographic materials
resulted in the recoding of atlases from the books/serials formats to the maps
formats. Concommitant with this change, a cartographic material type of
"atlas" was defined. It is our understanding that digital atlases (e.g., the
DeLorme and Thomas Bros. products) should be coded as atlases. Introducing the
code for electronic as a type would mean we could not code for both
characteristics (electronic and atlas).
While we could live with using 008/33-34, we favor using 008/29 for both visual
materials and maps. The OCLC proposal cites this as being easier for the
machine ("so that systems would not have to search in so many different places
for electronic");we think it would also be easier for the human beings who need
to enter the codes into the records in the first place.
Serials: Original form of item. We are unclear on when the new code would be
used in the serials 008/22. Is the intent to use this code when one is
cataloging a reproduction of something originally issued electronically, e.g.,
a printout of an Internet resource? While CONSER makes a clear distinction
between original microforms and microform reproductions, such a distinction has
been avoided for most digital materials. Rather than using one set of variable
field tags for digital versions and another for digital reproductions, the
CONSER Editing Guide treats them identically. Since most textual composition
is now done on a computer (including this message!) it can be very difficult to
discern whether the printed item in hand was initially an original print item
or whether it is a reproduction of a digital item. Some guidance would be very
helpful in terms of whether this new code is a good idea.
Crystal Graham
Chair, Cataloging Committee
University of California, San Diego
Note that these concerns come from UCSD staff. I do not speak for CONSER nor
have I brought this issue to the attention of the CONSER Program prior to
writing this message.
|