Even printed theses by computer have always been considered unpublished
manuscripts rather than published textual monographs, so I am not sure
that it matters if one has a printout from the computer file or a digital
image of the file contents. Theses are produced in one or a very few
number of copies, without editorial review or peer review in the same way
that published monographs are made. I just see digital theses as
analogous to their print equivalents.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Joan Wang wrote:
Adam
I remember that I asked the question before, and got an answer Yes. If we
do not consider ETDs published, do we consider them manuscripts? The
following is the definition of manuscript from RDA Toolkit:
1)
In general, a text, musical score, map, etc., inscribed or written entirely
by hand, or the handwritten or typescript copy of a creator’s work.
2)
In the context of production method for manuscripts, any handwritten
manuscript which is not a holograph.
Based on the definition, isn't it hard to consider ETDs manuscripts? I am
also wondering that.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Adam L. Schiff <asch...@u.washington.edu>wrote:
I've always had a problem with considering ETDs published, although I
understand that for practical purposes it is easier to consider everything
available via remote access as published. But I really don't see an
electronic dissertation as anything less of a manuscript than a printed
one. Particularly in the case of a printed thesis that has been scanned
and posted online as a reproduction - is this really published now? If one
were to run a macro such as OCLC has to generate the record for the
digitized version off of the manuscript record, it would not have a place
of publication or a publisher - these would have to be added as part of the
process, and that seems unnecessary to me and others I've spoken with.
We've been coding our ETDs in our digital repository as manuscript material.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^**^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Myers, John F. wrote:
Which perhaps begs the question of why have two different Type codes for
the same kind of content? (Which I acknowledge is an encoding and
communication format question rather than an RDA question.)
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623
------------------------------**------------------------------**---
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Joan Milligan wrote:
I believe the "Type" should be "a" not "t," because a dissertation is
considered published when it appears online.
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
