John, Ed and All : Hi -- Yes, I must agree that I read Heidrun's description of the "Zeitschriftendatenbank" (serials union catalogue, ZDB) with a certain amount of envy. I was especially struck by the practical appeal of the following feature:
<snip> Automatic processes copy the relevant records to the local ILS of each participating library. And whenever a master record is updated by one of the cooperating partners, again there are automatic mechanisms which ensure that the copies in the local ILS of all libraries are updated as well. <snip> This ability to have the master record "pushed" out to the ILS of holding libraries is especially appealing to many Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) libraries that spend a great deal of time performing parallel Bib & Authorities maintenance in order to keep our local ILS catalogs synchronized with the maintenance we do in the CONSER and NACO databases. everett ************************* Everett Allgood Principal Serials Cataloger & Authorities Librarian New York University Libraries everett.allg...@nyu.edu 212 998 2488 On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:40 PM, John Hostage <host...@law.harvard.edu>wrote: > I think basing the description on the latest issue makes sense, especially > in the context of a centralized database. This is essentially what we do > already for integrating resources (RDA 2.1.2.4). Germany always seems to > be years ahead of us technologically. Maybe they can propose a revision to > RDA. > > ------------------------------------------ > John Hostage > Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian > Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services > Langdell Hall 194 > Cambridge, MA 02138 > host...@law.harvard.edu > +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) > +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller > > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 02:21 > > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > > Subject: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue > > > > I'd like your thoughts on a problem which the German library community > > has to face when making the move to RDA: It's the question of whether > > the description of a serial should be based on the first or the latest > > issue (in cases of minor variations, which do not call for a new entry > > altogether). > > > > RDA, of course, is quite clear on the matter: "If the issues or parts > > are sequentially numbered, choose a source of information identifying > > the lowest numbered issue or part available" (2.1.2.3). Information > > that appears on later issues has, I believe, traditionally been handled > > by notes in Anglo-American cataloguing. > > > > Now our problem is that we do it exactly the other way round, i.e. the > > description is always based on the latest issue, with information > > regarding earlier issues given as notes. The reasoning behind this is > > that the current information (current title, current publisher...) is > > what our users are most interested in, and what is also needed for > > acquisitions and used in the relevant systems. So we want to give this > > information prominently. > > > > When reading up a bit on the matter I got the impression that the > > 'principle of the first issue' was introduced to AACR2 mainly for > > practical reasons, in order to facilitate the re-using of serials > > records on a national level. But in Germany the 'principle of the > > latest issue' doesn't hinder sharing of serials records at all. I > > assume that this is due to a different technical environment: We have a > > centralized serials database, the "Zeitschriftendatenbank" (serials > > union catalogue, ZDB), which is used cooperatively by more than 4000 > > libraries in Germany and Austria. The master records for the serials > > are kept (and updated, if necessary) in the ZDB, and the holdings of > > all the libraries are stored in this database as well. It comprises > > about 1.6 million bibliographical records and 11.5 million holdings > > records. Automatic processes copy the relevant records to the local ILS > > of each participating library. And whenever a master record is updated > > by one of the cooperating partners, again there are automatic > > mechanisms which ensure that the copies in the local ILS of all > > libraries are updated as well. > > > > If we were to change to 'first issue' in order to adhere to RDA, this > > would mean a vast amount of work on the existing data (which cannot be > > done automatically, as the serials specialists point out). Now I > > wonder: > > What would we gain in return for this huge effort? > > > > So my questions are: What are your feelings about first vs. latest > > issue > > - which advantages and disadvantages do you see? If you were free to > > choose, i.e. if there was no existing data to consider, and if we > > assume (for the sake of the argument) that both methods were equally > > well suited for the sharing of data: Which method would you prefer? And > > also: > > Would you see it as a problem if the German library community were to > > stick to its practice of 'latest issue' when moving to RDA? > > > > Heidrun > > > > -- > > --------------------- > > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > > Stuttgart Media University > > Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 > > Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi > --
