 |
 |
At 11:34 AM 11/30/2007, Bryan Baldus wrote: >I don't know if it is correct, but for a recent heading, I used: > >670 Google book search, Oct. 2, 2007$bEncyclopedia of evangelicalism, p. 648 >(Spencer, Ivan Q(uay), 1888-1970) I slap my forehead and say "Why didn't I scan for 'GOOGLE' before?" I found 906 authority records in name authority issues 2007.01-2007.47 that have "GOOGLE" in the 670 somewhere. Of these, 48 are for "Google books" in some form. (In the rant portion of my message, we'll come back to the others.) Of these, 15 begin the citation with "Google books" or some variation, generally followed by identification of the particular title; and 33 begin with a citation of the individual title, followed by an identification of the mode of access. So by a margin of about 2 to 1, people seem to fall into the "source first" pattern. There is substantial variation among the citations, as you might expect, although the intent of all is usually clear enough; here are two reasonably intelligible examples, one of each: Google first: 670: : |a Google Book Search, via WWW, Feb. 23, 2007: |b Williams, H. Thomas Hastings, 2005, p. 100 (New York Academy of Sacred Music; choral soc. for the cultivation of sacred music; est. 1835, in NYC, by Thomas Hastings, et al.; gave concerts at the Broadway Tabernacle Church) Source first: 670: : |a One hundred modern Scottish poets, 1895, accessed via Google books, November 1, 2007 |b (Rev. James Milligan, D.D.; b. in Ecclefechan; taught in Yorkshire; attended Univ.of Toronto in 1856; in 1868 returned to the UK and was called to the ministry in Houghton-le-Spring in Durham) (In each "Google first" example, the individual title is in subfield $b rather than $a. I would have thought that this is part of the "identification of source" rather than the "information found in source," and therefore $a material. Clearly I'm in the minority [once again!].) (If course, there's no way to identify 670s that are based on Google book searches, that don't bother to say that the thing was viewed online. So there may actually be a substantial body of other 670s based on Google book searches not included in the above sample.) If it's necessary to indicate that an item was viewed via Google (note the "if"), I would suggest that the "source first" form is more generally useful--because it is the source itself, not the mode of access, that's providing the information (same stuff should mostly be in both the paper and online versions, right?). No need to be sticky about the precise wording as long as the meaning is clear. The main thing is to let others know make it clear going on. ********************** Tangential rant follows Now: What about the 850 or so Google 670s that aren't for Google books? Well, they are by and large a sad lot: they great Google as an information source. My own opinion is that Google itself is not a source of information; it makes it possible for us to find sources of information. A parallel case would be Readers' guide in the old days--if we found a relevant bit of information in an article identified via Readers' guide, we wouldn't say we found the information in Readers' guide, we'd say we found it in whatever thing RG had lead us to. So 670s along these lines (I've removed specific information to protect the guilty) ... 670: : |a Google web site, Dec. 29, 2006 |b (<information taken from some particular page found via Google, without reference to the actual page>) 670: : |a Google search, Jan. 5, 2007 |b (<information taken from some particular page found via Google, without reference to the actual page>) ... I'd say are particularly non-helpful and should be eschewed. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: [log in to unmask] voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2006.51.826