Yes, that doesn't surprise me. But they're going to care if one
manifestation is PDF, and another is Kindle, and another is mobi, and
another is ePub. (They might even know what those words mean, but
they're going to care that if they have an e-reader, some of those
formats will work on their particular e-reader and some won't).
If different electronic manifestations end up with slightly differnet
textual content (different pagination if they have pagination at all, or
slightly different actual text) -- then it's also going to matter for
scholarly citations to know which text was cited (or which version's
page 12), and be able to retrieve the appropriate cited version.
And it of course matters for own internal control, which vendor
platform hosts a given copy, so we can remove the advertisement of
access temporarily (if vendor platform is down) or permanently (if
vendor goes away or we stop licensing from them).
On 12/27/2012 3:39 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
It is definitely true that, from the point of view of resource management, each
manifestation has its own particular information that needs to be looked at
separately.
But its also true--or at least so it seems to me from the feedback our users
give us--that very few users care what provider they get their e-book or
articles from. For example, we often get complaints from users about the
intermediary menu our link-resolver shows when we have the same content from
multiple providers, as it creates an extra step and occassionally some
confusion about exactly what is going on.
The users that have preferred provider, I would guess, get to their resources via the provider (or
by other means, Google Scholar, etc.) and not through our catalog. (Then again, here at MIT we
follow, whenever possible, a "single record approach" which might be understood in
FRBR-terms as "expression-level cataloging". So maybe our users are already particularly
finnicky about what they see in the catalog?)
So while I think the concept of different electronic manifestations is
important for catalogers, but I'm not sure the practice of generating records
for each specific electronic manifestation is going to make our catalogs more
appealing to end-users.
My .02,
b
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:52 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The purpose of standards
James Weinheimer wrote:
With online resources, everyone is looking at *exactly the same files*
so the utility of even considering an online resource in terms of a
manifestation may be far less useful.
It seems to me that the concept of manifestation is no less important when considering
online resources. And they are certainly not always "exactly the same files".
For things such as electronic journals, there can be very significant differences between
manifestations (the one found on the publisher's web site vs. Ebsco vs. Gale, etc.).
And then there are also ebooks, where you have versions for Kindle, for Nook,
etc. Sound files can be in various formats and at different bit rates.
Graphic files can be in different formats and resolutions.
Many books, films, sound recordings, etc. have been digitally converted and
remastered multiple times, and there are very real differences between the
versions--differences which can be significant, perhaps even critical, to the
user.
Compared to the print world, one could argue that we are dealing with a greater
number of manifestations, and there will always be a need to distinguish
between them, on both the managerial side (e.g. selection and acquisition) and
the user side (obtaining files whose formats and features meet the user's
needs).
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
