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 at its November 2012 meeting (see the report of outcomes at 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?

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


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:

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 E. Schreur
Head, Metadata Department
Stanford University
Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging
650-725-1120 (fax)