Print

Print


Oops, I should have added that application of an “alternative” as suggested would apply only to a  “major change” under the earlier rule which occurred  before the time of the rule change J --

Beth

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Guay
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 11:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Please help us make two decisions for Module 31

 

I’m squeamish about instructing the cataloger to create a single record for an online manifestation to relate to two or more print manifestations cataloged under earlier rules if the e-version is being described at a later point in time under later rules.  I have to agree with Ed on number one.

An alternative in the case of an existing unauthenticated or authenticated e-version bib  created under the earlier rules (as evident from the date entered field of the record) would be to accept the rule that was appropriate at the time of the creation of the e-version record when re-describing under RDA. I would think an LC-PCC PS could offer a guideline --If the record was entered into the database before [date] apply the earlier instruction on major/minor change [give earlier instruction].

I don’t think that would bring in too much complexity, I think it would make life easier.

As for 31.17.2, I strongly agree with the proposed  revision “Catalog the titles as successive entries based on the information available, including external sources such as the ISSN portal and abstracting and indexing services, the Internet Archive and other possible sources.  In cases where the title existed in both print and online forms, the description of the online could be based on the print with notes about reformatting.”

That will simplify cataloging as well as comprehensibility of the bibliographic record … so, yes, the practice should be discontinued.

 

Beth

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Please help us make two decisions for Module 31

 

(1)    Creating a single record for an online manifestation when multiple successive records were created for the corresponding print manifestation under earlier cataloging rules. From a FRBR (and presumably BIBFRAME) perspective, it’s hard to see how this will work. Will the multiple print manifestations be somehow treated as component parts of the same work/expression as the online manifestation? It may be more pragmatic to collapse the print.

(2)    Creating multiple records for an online manifestation when multiple successive records would be created for the corresponding print manifestations. From a FRBR (and presumably BIBFRAME) perspective, I have no trouble with this in the world as it currently exists. (Of course, even as I type this, I can feel the earth shifting beneath my feet.)

So I guess that’s “no” on 1 and “yes” on 2.

Ed

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Les
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCTG1] Please help us make two decisions for Module 31

 

Hello Editors and reviewers,

The group working on Module 31 issued a new report this week with two final questions that need resolution. The report, on the icohere website and attached to this message addresses these two issues:

1.) Whether or not to collapse records for print versions which, if being created under current practices, would constitute minor changes

2.) Integrated entry for serials, should the practice suggested in LC-PCC PS 2.3.7.3 be continued?

Both of these issues fall under 31.17.

I think that the proposal on collapsing records is in line with the discussion we had at OpCo in 2013.

If we decide not to continue the integrated entry practice in LC-PCC PS 2.3.7.3, we will request that this policy statement be removed.

I am interested in hearing from everyone by Monday December 2, 2013 with a yes or no to incorporating the proposals submitted by the group into Module 31. Additional comments on the proposals are also welcome.

It is ok to reply on or off the list, but if you reply off the list, please reply to three of us: Beth Thornton, [log in to unmask] chair of the group, Hien, and me.

Sorry for the short turn around on this but if we can give the final version to the Catalogers desktop staff by Dec. 6th, 2013, it should make issue 1 of Desktop in 2014.

Thanks everyone for your work on the CCM! --Les