Print

Print


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)
>