James Weinheimer wrote:
So it is more of a difference in what is considered a minor change.
No, actually we've got exactly the same rules for what is considered a
major change and what is seen as a minor change. I believe there used to
be some differences, but since 2007 we've been using the ISBD rules, and
thus have adapted to international standards. Therefore, the entities
should be the same in AACR2/RDA and our rules.
Let's take the following example:
A becomes B (major change)
B becomes C (minor change)
C becomes D (minor change)
D becomes E (major change)
This leads to the following three entities:
Entity 1 (A)
Entity 2 (B, C and D)
Entity 3 (E)
For the three entities, three records are created. There are links
between them, so in a catalogue you can easily jump between them.
Now consider entity 2. According to RDA, it looks like this:
Title proper: B
Later title proper: C
Later title proper: D
In a conventional display, B would be given in the title area, whereas C
and D would be shown as notes.
Now according to our practice, the entity looks like this:
Title proper: D
Earlier title proper: B
Earlier title proper: C
So, the information given is the same, but it's differently presented:
In RDA, the oldest version is given prominence, whereas according to our
rules the latest version is given prominence.
So, if I may revise my earlier question:
When a serial has minor title changes: A to B to C to D (D is the
latest version) and a library has only A and B, I am still interested
in what the library does. Is the library supposed to add a title
reference from Title D? This would be easy in the card catalog, but
perhaps more difficult in the OPAC.
The entity would then, in our rules, look like this:
Title proper: D
Earlier title proper: A
Earlier title proper: B
Earlier title proper: C
The record would look identical in all libraries which have holdings for
the entity. It doesn't matter whether a library owns issues only for one
or some of the four stages.
Let's assume that library X stopped purchasing the serial when it was
still called "B". At that time, the record in the ZDB (and also in the
local ILS of library X) looked like this:
Title proper: B
Earlier title proper: A
But at the moment when the title changes to C, some other library Y
(which still subscribes to the serial) will make the following change in
the master record in the ZDB:
Title proper: C
Earlier title proper: A
Earlier title proper: B
Library X doesn't have to actively "do" anything with its own record: It
will automatically get an updated copy of the record delivered from the
ZDB to its own local ILS. The same will happen when the title is changed
to D:
Title proper: D
Earlier title proper: A
Earlier title proper: B
Earlier title proper: C
But if there is a major change from D to E, a new record will be created
in the ZDB. Library X will, of course, not get a copy of this record (as
it doesn't have holdings for this entity). But it will get an updated
record for the earlier entity. This will now also include the
information that the entity D (with earlier titles A, B and C) now has a
successor E.
Oh dear, I probably have you all confused by now ...
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
