Adam replied: >> Make whatever other references are judged useful to get users to the >> tracings. "I wholeheartedly agree that a liberalization of the rules and restrictions on making references would serve users well. We cannot expect non-catalogers to know that certain kinds of references are not made, even when it's highly likely that users search under them. A good example is when the series title proper is in one language but the authorized qualifier used is in another ... " I would like to add that our current restrictions on references also are a hindrance to certain aspects of machine processing. Some of the rules on references I think are based on the assumption a human brain will be looking at them (possibly, a human brain that knows more about cataloging than the average user). But we have automated many parts of authority control, so we also need references that are machine-friendly, so headings get flipped when they need to be, and headings that shouldn't be flipped, don't get flipped. ************ Diana Brooking (206) 543-8405 Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax Suzzallo Library [log in to unmask] University of Washington Box 352900 Seattle WA 98195-2900 On Wed, 31 May 2006, Adam L. Schiff wrote: > Just back today from a short (too short!!) vacation. I'm adding some > comments on Amy's comments from last week, which I'll try to do without > flaming ;-) > >> If there is a new, distinctive series title to be established, do so with >> the macro, reprogrammed so that t it won't supply a source for the series >> statement. Does it really matter whether the statement comes from the >> series t.p., the t.p., or the cover? A title is a title ... > > I think the answer to Amy's question depends on what "really" means. The > current rules for selecting the series title proper prescribe a preferred > order of sources, with the series t.p. being first, the t.p. being second, > etc. Having the exact information of which source has been selected is > probably necessary only when the form of the series title varies between or > among sources. Having the information enables us to retrospectively figure > out occasional problems that may arise regarding series. Not having the > source is much more likely to require later additional effort retrieving > issues of a series if a question arises than having the information present > in the authority record right from the start would. > > If we are going to eliminate recording the source of the series title, then > why would we continue to bother to record the source of an author's name, > which usually is taken from the t.p.? I don't think it's too much of an > effort to correct the source "ser. t.p." that is inserted automatically by > the OCLC macro if it is not the actual source of the series title. > > >> If the title is not distinctive, add the AACR2 form of some distinguishing >> body in ()'s. > > Generally speaking, I have no problem with this. Except that some times > adding a body is not sufficient to make the title distinctive and provisions > would need to be in place to add something different or something in addition > to make it distinctive. > >> If there are variant titles, either in one publication or over time, use >> judgment about whether there is a name change or not, and either make >> cross references or another AR linked with see also's. Do not agonize >> between these two choices--either works in guiding users to tracings. > > Since series can be cataloged as serials, the rules for treating title > changes must be the same. I happen to think consistency in application of > title change rules is important, so here I personally think that some > agonizing is necessary. This is particularly true for those libraries that > create both a bibliographic record for the series cataloged as a serial AND > individual records for the parts of the series. The series access points and > decisions about major title changes must be identical. > >> Make whatever other references are judged useful to get users to the >> tracings. > > I wholeheartedly agree that a liberalization of the rules and restrictions on > making references would serve users well. We cannot expect non-catalogers to > know that certain kinds of references are not made, even when it's highly > likely that users search under them. A good example is when the series title > proper is in one language but the authorized qualifier used is in another, > e.g. > > Report (Brottsforebyggande radet (Sweden)) > > In a case like above, I think a reference such as > > Report (National Swedish Council for Crime Prevention) > and/or > Report (National Council for Crime Prevention (Sweden)) > > would actually be very useful references to have in our catalogs to help > users, although they are references that are not currently permitted by NACO. > > >> Add the AR to the authority file, and move on. > > And a corollary to this might be that if creating a series authority is going > to cause a lot of agonizing and take several hours of a cataloger's time, > then perhaps the effort in establishing that heading is not warranted and the > bib. record should not be contributed as a BIBCO record. > Catalogers should be empowered to judge for themselves when they would be > better spending that time creating other bib. records and authorities. > > > --Adam Schiff > > ************************************** > * 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] * ************************************** >