Bobby and others, I'm writing to respond to two of the comments in Bobby's email. Re: the statement about online resources being published. The JSC did approve the addition of the sentence �Consider all online resources to be published" to RDA 2.8.1.1 at its November 2012 meeting (see the report of outcomes at http://www.rda-jsc.org/2012JSCmeetingoutcomes.html). The sentence will be added in the RDA Toolkit with other changes from that November meeting in coming months. Re: the statement about lack of "Print reproduction (manifestation)" in appendix J. This appendix is not a closed list; catalogers may use another designator to represent a relationship not included in the appendix. Also, PCC can, via the ALA representative to the JSC, propose additions to the appendix. Such additions are handled on a Fast Track basis and don't need a formal proposal. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Bothmann, Robert L < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thanks for this! > > I have a few friendly comments (that include some RDA critiques). > > Page 8, 246 Monographs column "Use indicators: 31" > What is the rationale for this? Not that any OPAC really seems to do this, > but 1 for "Note, Added Entry" would make more sense as it would use the > second indicator to let us know what kind of varying form of title it > actually is. > > Page 10, 264$a Notes "All online resources are considered published" > RDA does not say this and so far as I can tell there is no RDA equivalent > to 9.4B2 in RDA. > We still need some clarification of production vs. publication where it > involves electronic resources. For example, the ProQuest digital > dissertation is not something I would consider published; it is produced > by the university and distributed in electronic form by ProQuest. No actual > publication has occurred, only a distribution. > > I know this will not be an issue for most resources that fall under PN > guidelines. However, the blanket statement to consider all online resources > published could be misleading. > > > Page 12, 300$a Monographs "1 online resource". > This one has always irked me the most about PN cataloging. The problem > here is that a great many digital resources are not online resources. > Online resource per RDA is "A digital resource accessed by means of > hardware and software connections to a communications network." RDA 3.1.5 > does say to "record 'online resource' as the carrier type for all online > resources." > > Given that RDA defines an online resource specifically as one might > expect--something that is accessed by means of a communication network--the > scope of this really narrows down to a few types of resources. This term > works for digital resources that require an active Internet connection. But > as soon as you download that e-book to your e-reader and put your e-reader > into airplane mode, you are definitely not online. > > I know this may seem like picky semantics, but "online" has always meant > you have an active data connection. Online resource works for streaming > resources. But for non-streaming digital resources that do not require > streaming, it is a misnomer. > > 1 electronic text is sufficient, easily understood, and is not going to > cause confusion by suggesting the user must have an active Internet > connection to use the resources. All-in-all, this does not sync well with > the principle of representation to use this term as a "standard" regardless > of whether it is true for that resource or not. > > And then we need to consider the immediate technological future. All > things in the "Cloud" is the current bandwagon. Everything that is in the > "cloud" is probably going to be, technically, an online resource if you > access it one way, or a non-streaming resource when you download it to your > device. How long before "online resource" becomes wasted typing and > inconsequential information, just like "538 Mode of access: World Wide > Web."? > > In short--"1 online resource" is short-sighted, it's jargon, and it is > potentially misleading to the user. > > > Page 13, 338 Notes > The RDA vocabulary term "online resource" is one of the major failings of > RDA as many digital objects are not "online resources" (see RDA glossary). > It's sad that RDA allows us to be more descriptive of out-of-date microform > and computer cassette technology than with our current technology; and we > are going to be very sorry about this sooner than we might guess. > > > Page 20, 776 Notes "Print version:, Online version..." > This is supposed to be RDA cataloging! We should be using the vocabulary > found in RDA Appendix J. For example: "776 $i Electronic reproduction of > (manifestation): " This in and of itself is silly given that there is no > reverse option of Print reproduction of (manifestation) for born digital > resources. Another failure in RDA as it prefers print over electronic while > purporting to be "designed for the digital world". Granted the vocabulary > in the appendices is typically not user friendly, but it's what we have. > What is the rationale for not using the RDA standard? > > > Thanks, > Bobby Bothmann > > > *********************************** > Robert Bothmann > Metadata & Emerging Technologies Librarian > Associate Professor, Library Services > Minnesota State University, Mankato > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > On Behalf Of Philip Schreur > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:53 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [PCCLIST] Provider-Neutral E-Resource Guidelines > > Everyone, > > With all the excitement of ALA Midwinter, I believe that I forgot to > announce that the Provider-Neutral E-Resource MARC Record Guide: P-N/RDA > version is now available for your use! It can be found at: > > http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PN-RDA-Combined.docx > > Special thanks to Rebecca Culbertson for all the work she has done to > pull this together. The document is dated "January 1, 2013 version." > Please refer to it for all your P-N work. Enjoy! > > Philip > > -- > Philip E. Schreur > Head, Metadata Department > Stanford University > Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging > 650-723-2454 > 650-725-1120 (fax) >