By shifting to the user the burden of differentiating and selecting among the various versions of a resource, we also generate "artificial usage" of the less desired versions, as these are briefly viewed by the user, then rejected in favor of a version better suited the user's needs. As a consequence, COUNTER usage reports and similar collection development tools will tend to over-report the popularity of these less-desired versions.
Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) -----Original Message----- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:18 PM To: Ed Jones Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Provider neutral records Ed Jones said: >I've always been puzzled that we allow a range of content variation >in "provider-neutral" records for electronic resources that we would >never allow in records for other media. I agree absolutely. We find many of the e-publishers for whom we provide MARC records do more than just provide a PDF of the original text. Not only may they differ (e.g., colour vs. black and white illustrations, or no illustratons), but the provider may add value, ranging form gathering in subject series to adding related video and audio files. That's why we like 260$abc for the original publisher, and 260$e$f$g for the provider. There is also the matter of gathering the records of one provider if the library ceases to subscribe to that provider. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
