Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Yes, as with many fields, we will discover that we need both a transcribed field, and a relationship--the relationship can be built with a number of technical devices, including what we used to call a 'controlled access point', or some other kind of identifier. I like John's attention to clearly calling this a 'relationship'. This is a general pattern which we see over and over again in our library metadata--and is in fact not something new, but something done for _some_ fields in the anglo-american cataloging tradition. The difference is that the relationship was built using the so-called controlled access point, when many of us would like to gradually transition to using more modern identifiers instead. The other issue is determining when the user need is enough to spend time on creating that relationship. This might not be a decision which can be made universally, it might be made on a community-by-community or even library-by-library basis. Meaning some people are going to establish that relationship for place of publication, and others are not. This makes it clear how important it is to have a cooperative cataloging infrastructure that easily allows someone else to _add_ it later. Attention to the cooperative cataloging infrastructure is needed to get where we want to go, on top of RDA's list of rules/guidelines. Jonathan John Attig wrote: At 09:27 AM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: Adam L. Schiff wrote: At present, the instruction in RDA is to take and record what you see. In other words, true transcription of what you find, with no abbreviation. However, if abbreviations are on the resource, then you will record them the way they appear. If the higher jurisdiction of the place is not present, it does not get recorded in the place element. Instead it will be given in a note. Which, of course, makes it useless for any machine processing, such as re-organizing a retrieved set by place of publication or providing a way for a user to Find (FRBR user task) items published in a particular location. It seems that when it comes to Find, the rules have a pre-conceived notion of what users can ask for. And in case you think that this isn't a legitimate search, I had reason to do exactly this search the other day, and was not successful. The way to support this functionality, which I agree should not be dismissed out of hand, is not to change the conventions for recording the place of publication -- whose function is primarily one of identification, based on what appears on the item -- but rather to define a relationship between the resource and the place in which it is published, using the Place entity to provide a consistent form for access, as well as variants. Apart from RDA, I would note that many special collections libraries currently use MARC field 752 to provide structured, controlled access to place names as a means of creating an imprint file for their holdings. The point is the same: we need a controlled access point, not a descriptive data element, in order to provide consistent access to place of publication. John Attig -- Jonathan Rochkind Digital Services Software Engineer The Sheridan Libraries Johns Hopkins University 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Adam said gave example:
Published in London, Ont.
(Place of publication as transcribed from source: London)
So abbreviation in notes, but not in transcribed areas?
260$aLondon [Ont.] is far more helpful to patrons, most of whom
never get to the notes. It is also a language neutral solution for
the bilingual libraries we serve.
What is the thought behind this? Hoping to automatically harvest the
material in transcribed elements without human intervention?
I suspect those notes will be as hit and miss as is the present
transcription or supplying of jurisdiction in imprint.
While I appreciate your point that imprint key word search is
different from a a structured key like 752, or coded information in
008/15-17 (which does not include actual city), some consistency in
transcribing and supplying jurisdiction would be much less labour
intensive than the propoed notes, as well as being more likely to be
understood and utilized by patrons.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
John, I agree with you that we need both pieces of information, but how can this be part of our data if it isn't included in the cataloging rules? This is what concerns me: that there seems to be an assumption that data will be available that isn't being accounted for in RDA. As you say: Apart from RDA... Where will this data come from if not from the cataloging process? And why should our cataloging rules ignore data that we know we need? What is this magical Apart from RDA... and who will create it? kc John Attig wrote: At 09:27 AM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: Adam L. Schiff wrote: At present, the instruction in RDA is to take and record what you see. In other words, true transcription of what you find, with no abbreviation. However, if abbreviations are on the resource, then you will record them the way they appear. If the higher jurisdiction of the place is not present, it does not get recorded in the place element. Instead it will be given in a note. Which, of course, makes it useless for any machine processing, such as re-organizing a retrieved set by place of publication or providing a way for a user to Find (FRBR user task) items published in a particular location. It seems that when it comes to Find, the rules have a pre-conceived notion of what users can ask for. And in case you think that this isn't a legitimate search, I had reason to do exactly this search the other day, and was not successful. The way to support this functionality, which I agree should not be dismissed out of hand, is not to change the conventions for recording the place of publication -- whose function is primarily one of identification, based on what appears on the item -- but rather to define a relationship between the resource and the place in which it is published, using the Place entity to provide a consistent form for access, as well as variants. Apart from RDA, I would note that many special collections libraries currently use MARC field 752 to provide structured, controlled access to place names as a means of creating an imprint file for their holdings. The point is the same: we need a controlled access point, not a descriptive data element, in order to provide consistent access to place of publication. John Attig -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
At 10:58 AM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: John, I agree with you that we need both pieces of information, but how can this be part of our data if it isn't included in the cataloging rules? I don't disagree that this should be provided for in RDA. This is what concerns me: that there seems to be an assumption that data will be available that isn't being accounted for in RDA. As you say: Apart from RDA... Where will this data come from if not from the cataloging process? There is no provision in AACR that supports the use of 752 that I describe, and yet catalogers -- at least in some contexts -- do provide the data. I'm not sure that we need to assume that any set of cataloging rules defines the limits of what can be included in our cataloging records. And why should our cataloging rules ignore data that we know we need? The trick is to make a convincing case that we do need this data. Apparently this has not yet been done. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University John Attig wrote: At 09:27 AM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: Adam L. Schiff wrote: At present, the instruction in RDA is to take and record what you see. In other words, true transcription of what you find, with no abbreviation. However, if abbreviations are on the resource, then you will record them the way they appear. If the higher jurisdiction of the place is not present, it does not get recorded in the place element. Instead it will be given in a note. Which, of course, makes it useless for any machine processing, such as re-organizing a retrieved set by place of publication or providing a way for a user to Find (FRBR user task) items published in a particular location. It seems that when it comes to Find, the rules have a pre-conceived notion of what users can ask for. And in case you think that this isn't a legitimate search, I had reason to do exactly this search the other day, and was not successful. The way to support this functionality, which I agree should not be dismissed out of hand, is not to change the conventions for recording the place of publication -- whose function is primarily one of identification, based on what appears on the item -- but rather to define a relationship between the resource and the place in which it is published, using the Place entity to provide a consistent form for access, as well as variants. Apart from RDA, I would note that many special collections libraries currently use MARC field 752 to provide structured, controlled access to place names as a means of creating an imprint file for their holdings. The point is the same: we need a controlled access point, not a descriptive data element, in order to provide consistent access to place of publication. John Attig -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
While the example currently says London, Ont., my understanding is that abbreviations in notes are also supposed to be avoided in general. I assume that the example will be changed to spell out Ontario when the final draft comes out in August. Adam On Fri, 9 May 2008, J. McRee Elrod wrote: Adam said gave example: Published in London, Ont. (Place of publication as transcribed from source: London) So abbreviation in notes, but not in transcribed areas?
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: But I agree with John in general. Certainly, when the standards are insufficient metadata creators are always free to add extra stuff not provided for in the standards. But our goal should be to make standards that are sufficient, of course. I think that our history with MARC has led us to the unfortunate conclusion that the cataloging activity and the systems activity are separate. When the MARC format was developed, there were two key factors: 1 - the cataloging rules and practices already existed, and they were designed for the creation of an eye-readable card 2 - the MARC format was to be used to print those cards MARC was added on top of the cataloging rules rather than being developed along side them. Of course, the MARC record now IS the catalog entry. But it's still got that card history built into it. There has been a great deal of effort to coordinate MARC and the AACRs, but MARC has many data elements that aren't covered by any rules other than the MARC21 standard. This situation of having the cataloging rules and the data entry format and rules on separate development paths is not ideal. However, I think our profession has become accustomed to thinking of the catalog rules and the data rules as separate. This leads to an unfortunate (and erroneous) assumption that one creates catalog rules without including technology requirements, and that somehow systems developers will come along with some magic that makes the catalog useful. I know that RDA has as a goal to be technology neutral, but there is no such thing. A statement like Make a note is a technology solution. It is utterly technologically deterministic. As a systems person I should ask: OK, it's a note. What do you want the system to do with it? If the answer is: Display it to the user, I can do that. But if later someone comes along and says: Make it possible to retrieve all items with these characteristics and that data is only in a note, I have to say: Sorry, no can do. So in fact the cataloging data DOES determine the technology capabilities, whether it does so consciously or not. We have a lot of examples in our current systems where there are functions we would like to provide but cannot because the data isn't there in a way that can be processed. I think our future will be much of the same because once again we are developing cataloging rules as if they will be used in a display-only environment, and that technology will just have to work with that as best it can. kc -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Greta de Groat wrote: I do think that the ideal situation is one where one has both human-readable data and identfiers for many of the data elements. That way you have the best of both worlds. Look at CCO, many of the instructions also follow this path. I think it is a good thing for the rules to say that this is a desirable state when possible. But remember that this is not always going to be possible. For one thing it will take more time to input this information--and how many times over the years have you heard griping about having to input the redundant information in fixed fields (not that this information was ideally coded, but the impulse for machine processing was there). Administrators will not see this as a simplification. Greta, some time could be saved by embracing identifiers. Rather than seeing identifiers as something you input, you could see them as sources of information. For example, there is no reason for anyone to have to key a publisher name for a modern book with an ISBN -- the identity of the publisher is inherent in the ISBN and that information could be system supplied (using a barcode scanner). But this would mean giving up the idea that the publisher name must be transcribed from the piece. It is that rule that is forcing us to continue to key the publisher name rather than get that information from a readily available source. Many people were quite affronted when the Future of Bibliographic Control report suggested getting as much data as possible from the publishers. There is data that they obviously have and presumably could pass on. And a simple identifier like the ISBN is actually a window to a whole host of information that could be used to populate a bibliographic record. kc -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
there is no reason for anyone to have to key a publisher name for a modern book with an ISBN -- the identity of the publisher is inherent in the ISBN and that information could be system supplied (using a barcode scanner) Is this true of very small publishers who buy their ISBNs in tiny blocks--like 10 or so at a time? If so, great, but that seems like it would require an awful lot of work by Bowker Of course more power to them if they do it. And what about ISBNs that are resold? (If one's answer is unawareness that this happens, then we're back to square one on this question, aren't we?) Many people were quite affronted when the Future of Bibliographic Control report suggested getting as much data as possible from the publishers. There is data that they obviously have and presumably could pass on. And a simple identifier like the ISBN is actually a window to a whole host of information that could be used to populate a bibliographic record. As one of the many who were affronted--although I prefer to describe the phenomenon as being baffled by why anybody would think most publishers would be interested in or capable of providing much information of a quality and in a form that could be easily used for bibliographic control--I'm not convinced. Whenever the chestnut that publishers are just waiting impatiently to particpate in cataloging comes up, I and the rest of the affronted masses ask who has successfully explored this rich source of untapped information with a publisher and gotten positive results? I keep a list of the publishers who erroneously claim that LC CIP is available for their books when it isn't, and the list is very long and getting longer. If publishers can't get this right (or knowingly lie about it) and can't--or won't--get publishing dates or locations right, why do we keep trying to tell ourselves that they have anything approaching a whole host of information that could be used to populate ! a bibliographic record and that they would provide it in a useable and reliable form? Publishers have trouble telling LC (or providers of P-CIP) who their authors are going to be for specific titles and whether these authors have published in the past. I'd feel a lot more sanguine about this strategy if someone would relate their positive experiences in getting such useful information from publishers. And it'd be nice if some of the cooperative publishers were of the more-than-ten-titles-per-year variety. At QBI we have a great deal of experience in getting--or trying to get--information from publishers, and very little reason to suspect this is a workable idea. And we provide the incentive that we're selling their books! Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Mike Tribby wrote: there is no reason for anyone to have to key a publisher name for a modern book with an ISBN -- the identity of the publisher is inherent in the ISBN and that information could be system supplied (using a barcode scanner) Is this true of very small publishers who buy their ISBNs in tiny blocks--like 10 or so at a time? If so, great, but that seems like it would require an awful lot of work by Bowker Of course more power to them if they do it. And what about ISBNs that are resold? (If one's answer is unawareness that this happens, then we're back to square one on this question, aren't we?) Most likely this would work with major publishers, not the small press folks. Then again, one saves the same amount of time NOT typing Random House as one does NOT typing Mama's Press and we probably save more time *collectively* not typing the more common publishers. I see no reason to give up the possibility just because it won't be available for every book. Many people were quite affronted when the Future of Bibliographic Control report suggested getting as much data as possible from the publishers. There is data that they obviously have and presumably could pass on. And a simple identifier like the ISBN is actually a window to a whole host of information that could be used to populate a bibliographic record. As one of the many who were affronted--although I prefer to describe the phenomenon as being baffled by why anybody would think most publishers would be interested in or capable of providing much information of a quality and in a form that could be easily used for bibliographic control--I'm not convinced. [snip} I'd feel a lot more sanguine about this strategy if someone would relate their positive experiences in getting such useful information from publishers. I'm sure it will depend on what you mean by useful, but the Open Library just loaded about 6 million records gleaned from Amazon, most of which were probably first provided by publishers. It isn't library cataloging data of course, it's publisher catalog data, which in many cases looks different from what libraries produce. The site also contains a snapshot set of LC MARC Books All from about 2007 (8 million, I believe). The Open Library site is new so we don't yet know what uses people will make of it, but it will be an interesting place to see a mixture of library and non-library bibliographic data in combination. kc -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
At 12:04 PM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: For example, there is no reason for anyone to have to key a publisher name for a modern book with an ISBN -- the identity of the publisher is inherent in the ISBN and that information could be system supplied (using a barcode scanner). But this would mean giving up the idea that the publisher name must be transcribed from the piece. It is that rule that is forcing us to continue to key the publisher name rather than get that information from a readily available source. Oh, my goodness. This is absolutely the wrong direction to be headed. This would result in exactly the kind of thing that WorldCat Local has done with the statement of responsibility, where they use authority-controlled data to supply a made-up (and often erroneous) by statement. In order to properly identify a given manifestation, the publisher name MUST be taken from the item in hand, otherwise the description might end up automatically changing over time as the publisher record changes (name change, acquired by another publisher, etc.). Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Kevin, there is no reason why the publisher name would change over time. You are assuming something that I did not say: I said that one could avoid keying the publisher name by having it derived from the ISBN at the time of cataloging. A publisher record (if linked through an identifier, which could also come from the ISBN) could record corporate name changes if desired. The use of the ISBN could incorporate the appropriate name in the bibliographic record (based on the date, if you want to get fancy) -- although that may vary from what is on the piece. If it does, then the cataloger could choose to change it. In some areas, for example in small public libraries, they may decide to take the name supplied by the ISBN without question, the same way that some libraries take copy cataloging without making modifications because they simply do not have the time to fiddle with details in the records. This is what I mean by needing to create system-related requirements. If the requirement is that the name not change, there's a good chance the system can be designed in that way. But if we don't know what we want systems to do, if we don't know the outcomes that we want, then we can't design systems that make our lives easier. I am convinced that systems could supply -- for cataloger *review* -- data that is now being keyed by hand. I'm interesting in exploring ways to save time in the cataloging process. I actually think we have no choice but to explore such options. kc Kevin M. Randall wrote: At 12:04 PM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: For example, there is no reason for anyone to have to key a publisher name for a modern book with an ISBN -- the identity of the publisher is inherent in the ISBN and that information could be system supplied (using a barcode scanner). But this would mean giving up the idea that the publisher name must be transcribed from the piece. It is that rule that is forcing us to continue to key the publisher name rather than get that information from a readily available source. Oh, my goodness. This is absolutely the wrong direction to be headed. This would result in exactly the kind of thing that WorldCat Local has done with the statement of responsibility, where they use authority-controlled data to supply a made-up (and often erroneous) by statement. In order to properly identify a given manifestation, the publisher name MUST be taken from the item in hand, otherwise the description might end up automatically changing over time as the publisher record changes (name change, acquired by another publisher, etc.). Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345 -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Greta said:
... statements of responsibility for videos are particularly lengthy
and time consuming.
Not all elements apply to all items. Statement of responsibility
should not apply to items of mixes responsibility such as
encyclopedias, newspapers, periodicals, journals, and motion pictures
(whether on film or videorecording).
The present separation of persons and bodies between 245 /$c and 508
in records for DVDs is nonsensical, and creates a confusing and too
long 245. The 245 for a DVD (apart perhaps from auteur art films and
interviews), should end with the gmd or other title information.
The absence of some elements from some items does not detract from the
importance of those elements for other items, e.g., statement of
responsibility and place of publication. Some items even lack titles,
as I mentioned earlier, so that it must be supplied rather than
transcribed. Core elements can not be always limited to
transcription. That does not mean title if present is not vital.
Understood for all core elements should be if applicable.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Karen Coyle wrote:
Then again, one saves the same amount of time NOT typing Random
House ...
A small point perhaps, but we rarely key the name of a common
publisher of legal materials. We either have it on a macro key, cut
and paste if cataloguing an electronic resource, or edit from the
record for a similar title from the same publisher.
We find keying takes less time than proof reading and correcting
publisher data. They often have differences from the item such as
numbers as digits when spelled out on the title page, or vise versa.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Karen said:
Kevin, there is no reason why the publisher name would change over time.
I assume you mean change *in the record*; publishers change the form
of their names frequenty.
Kevin is correct, at the time of cataloguing the publisher's name may
have changed since the time of publication. Even if static in the
record once entered, that name at time of cataloguing may not be the
name on the item.
Even without a name change, there is no guarantee that the publisher's
name indicated by the middle portion of the ISBN appears on the item
in that form. With related and subsiderary publishers, the forms of
name for the same publisher vary widely.
It is vital that for identification purposes, the publisher element
reflect the name of the publisher *as on the item*.
ISBN based imprint for an 18 cm. paperback popular collection
frequently weeded might be OK, but not for a scholarly collection.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
At 01:29 PM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: Kevin, there is no reason why the publisher name would change over time. You are assuming something that I did not say: I said that one could avoid keying the publisher name by having it derived from the ISBN at the time of cataloging. A publisher record (if linked through an identifier, which could also come from the ISBN) could record corporate name changes if desired. The use of the ISBN could incorporate the appropriate name in the bibliographic record (based on the date, if you want to get fancy) -- although that may vary from what is on the piece. If it does, then the cataloger could choose to change it. In some areas, for example in small public libraries, they may decide to take the name supplied by the ISBN without question, the same way that some libraries take copy cataloging without making modifications because they simply do not have the time to fiddle with details in the records. Sorry, Karen. I guess your original statements were sort of amiguous, so what they *seemed* to be saying was that either the ISBN could function as a link to a publisher record in lieu of actually recording the publisher name in the bibliographic record, or that the ISBN could link to data that gets pulled in to be bibliographic record--and stays there as is. This is what I mean by needing to create system-related requirements. If the requirement is that the name not change, there's a good chance the system can be designed in that way. But if we don't know what we want systems to do, if we don't know the outcomes that we want, then we can't design systems that make our lives easier. I am convinced that systems could supply -- for cataloger *review* -- data that is now being keyed by hand. Yes, I fully agree that the data could (should?) be supplied, and (as you said) *for cataloger review*. But if the data differs what appears on the item itself, then it would be unacceptable to leave it as is. I'm interesting in exploring ways to save time in the cataloging process. I actually think we have no choice but to explore such options. Agreed. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Thanks for posting the JSC Outcomes Nathalie.
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/0804out.html
The JSC agreed that the Additional edition statement and Statement of
responsibility following a title proper are important for
identification, and that both would be added to the core set of
elements. The JSC decided not to add the Place of publication because
in cases of simultaneous publication or online publication it is less
meaningful to users than in the past.
It's good to see valued and time tested AACR2 features return one by
one, including Statement of responsibility as core, and Selections as a
part of preferred (i.e. uniform) titles.
It's very disappointing to see Place of publication still not part of
Core. Any Core element may be less meaningful for a given item.
There are items lacking title, for example. The meaningfullness of
Place of publication remains for a large number of items, particularly
rare books and legal texts. If omitted, one needs to know whether it
was because it was not present ([S.l.] in ISBD), or because the
cataloguer opted to omit it.
While we are on Place of publication, we are told there will be no
abbreviations. I assume this does not mean that abbreviations on the
item will be spelled out? I want Place of publication as a Core
element, with jurisdiction of the place supplied if lacking!
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
Place is also important for procurement in case of multinational
publishers or international agencies. We should think the data beyond
the libraries.
Kayarat Baby
D.K. Agencies (P) Ltd.
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Thanks for posting the JSC Outcomes Nathalie.
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/0804out.html
The JSC agreed that the Additional edition statement and Statement of
responsibility following a title proper are important for
identification, and that both would be added to the core set of
elements. The JSC decided not to add the Place of publication because
in cases of simultaneous publication or online publication it is less
meaningful to users than in the past.
It's good to see valued and time tested AACR2 features return one by
one, including Statement of responsibility as core, and Selections as a
part of preferred (i.e. uniform) titles.
It's very disappointing to see Place of publication still not part of
Core. Any Core element may be less meaningful for a given item.
There are items lacking title, for example. The meaningfullness of
Place of publication remains for a large number of items, particularly
rare books and legal texts. If omitted, one needs to know whether it
was because it was not present ([S.l.] in ISBD), or because the
cataloguer opted to omit it.
While we are on Place of publication, we are told there will be no
abbreviations. I assume this does not mean that abbreviations on the
item will be spelled out? I want Place of publication as a Core
element, with jurisdiction of the place supplied if lacking!
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
