We found that the opposite of all this was true: Having multiple formats attached to the same records only confused our readers, leading many to assume there was only 1 format, and to fail to notice (often) one of the other. In other words FRBR has failed to be justified by experience in our library, at least in this respect.
Proximity to the physical site of the library, and nature of users also has temendous influence on requirement of format, and, increasingly it does matter to them what format's they use. Distance users do not want to know about print materials, particularly, for example. Amazon, Play et al. don't stick multiple formats on the same records either, and for once I agree with them. In a world of unstable (and enormous) e-book collections, the manual monitoring of individual records, and work required for integration with print collections, do not appear to me to be justifiable by our experience. So we will almost certainly not be following the new orthodoxy in this fashion (if it is ever really established! Have LoC accepted it all yet? It still all looks a bit vague to me....) Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: 13 November 2010 17:04 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book & e-book bibs and RDA prep What one does locally is of course one's own business. From the time-constrained remote user's point of view, an argument could be made for doing the opposite, i.e. attaching holdings for the physical item to the bibliographic record for the electronic form. This would allow one to take advantage of codes in the MARC leader (record label) and 008 to restrict a search to resources "instantly available" to the user. Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wardroper, Lawrence [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book & e-book bibs and RDA prep I am no expert on RDA but, have been wanting to do something like that for some time. Yes, it is work but, seems more in tune with the reality of what people want: I want this work (?), I will decide later if I want print, fiche, braille, PDF via the web... you fill in the blank. I don't care but, to me, they are all copies of the same thing. and a user would / could be most interested in the content first, format second. All in all, it means getting off the 'Biblio'graphic orientation that we have had for a long time. Which I think is part of what RDA is all about. Lawrence Wardroper Service de la bibliothèque | Library Services Service administratif des tribunaux judiciaires | Courts Administration Service 90, rue Sparks, Ottawa ON K1A 0H9 [email protected] Téléphone | Telephone 613-996-8735 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book & e-book bibs and RDA prep Megan Curran said: >Currently in our catalog (SirsiDynix Horizon) we have e-book records = >separate from the records of the same title in print, although in the = >print record we include a 856 that has the URL to the e-book version. = >Currently our e-book records do not have item records attached. We are >= considering changing our records so that the bib record for the print >book = will have item records representing both the print and >electronic forms, = with no e-book bib record. This would seem a backward step to me, and contrary to both AACR2 and RDA, which would have you catalogue the electronic resource, not its original. The need for a GMD in AACR2 electronic resource records, and different 3XX fields in RDA, as well as differing fixed fields (even if you use multiple terms in 3XX) would be a compromise. We do not yet have expression level records. Were I you I would use separate records with 530/776 in each. Although the provider neutral standard does not require 530, we find patrons understand 530 better than 776. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([email protected]) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
