[RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
With the latest update to the RDA Toolkit, instruction 2.8.1.1 now includes the sentence: Consider all online resources to be published. Daniel Paradis Bibliothécaire Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721 Télécopieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@banq.qc.camailto:daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.cahttp://www.banq.qc.ca/ _ De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la part de J. McRee Elrod Date: ven. 2013-05-17 23:12 À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD Greta asked: So, if we are supposed to be cataloging online monographs according to Prov= ider-neutral guidelines, wouldn't that mean that they would still be catalo= ged as unpublished? If it is electronic, it is considered published. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod 4493 Lindholm Road Victoria BC V9C 3Y1 Canada (250) 474-3361 m...@elrod.ca
Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
Why would this be an exception to the P-N practice? I don't see it addressed there as an exception. It seems to me that we have here two BIBCO instructions that are in conflict (if you're not doing PCC cataloging, then its not an issue). Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Paradis Daniel daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:15:10 AM Subject: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD With the latest update to the RDA Toolkit, instruction 2.8.1.1 now includes the sentence: Consider all online resources to be published. Daniel Paradis Bibliothécaire Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721 Télécopieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@banq.qc.camailto:daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.cahttp://www.banq.qc.ca/ _ De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la part de J. McRee Elrod Date: ven. 2013-05-17 23:12 À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD Greta asked: So, if we are supposed to be cataloging online monographs according to Prov= ider-neutral guidelines, wouldn't that mean that they would still be catalo= ged as unpublished? If it is electronic, it is considered published. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod 4493 Lindholm Road Victoria BC V9C 3Y1 Canada (250) 474-3361 m...@elrod.ca
Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
The implication of the instruction that all online resources are published is that when making a record for the electronic thesis from the record for the print manuscript, you'd need to change the type code to textual material and supply a place of publication and publisher. Adam -Original Message- From: Greta de Groat Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD Why would this be an exception to the P-N practice? I don't see it addressed there as an exception. It seems to me that we have here two BIBCO instructions that are in conflict (if you're not doing PCC cataloging, then its not an issue). Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Paradis Daniel daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:15:10 AM Subject: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD With the latest update to the RDA Toolkit, instruction 2.8.1.1 now includes the sentence: Consider all online resources to be published. Daniel Paradis Bibliothécaire Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721 Télécopieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@banq.qc.camailto:daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.cahttp://www.banq.qc.ca/ _ De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la part de J. McRee Elrod Date: ven. 2013-05-17 23:12 À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD Greta asked: So, if we are supposed to be cataloging online monographs according to Prov= ider-neutral guidelines, wouldn't that mean that they would still be catalo= ged as unpublished? If it is electronic, it is considered published. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod 4493 Lindholm Road Victoria BC V9C 3Y1 Canada (250) 474-3361 m...@elrod.ca
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
20.03.2013 15:49, Laurence S. Creider: Second, I agree that the notion of publication needs reconsideration in light of a longer consideration of the history of the book from ancient times until now. I do not think that anything fit for public reception is a workable definition. For our purposes, I think, the question is, Does it matter?. We simply need a word for the stuff we catalog, and it better be a word that is understood and taken for granted right away. If you think resource is the word, and every catalog user is comfortable with it, then fine. But is this the case? Is it not considered catalogese jargon? (Even if considering just the English speaking community.) You see, we *do* catalog lots of stuff these days that is not published in the conventional sense. All of it is, however, made available to the public, in some way or other, or else we wouldn't include it in the first place. So, is not this fact of being made available to the public a criterion that we might now simply turn around to mean published? Or, in other words, who would be helped if we made a sophisticated distinction, in the catalog, between stuff that is published and other stuff that is not, though being available or accessible just as well? For us, I think, a workable definition is one that causes us the minimum of work, and esp. so if the effect of it is minimal. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material? Typescripts or unpublished items produced with a printing press or even Word documents can be coded as manuscript though they are not handwritten, but the distinction for other types of material is based on the method of production: manuscript = handwritten, non-manuscript = printed or electronic (see below, and note that electronic notated music is not coded as manuscript notated music). I wouldn't advocate for changing this coding for non-thesis textual typescripts, because researchers are interested in them as artifacts, and the leader code is the only effective way to retrieve manuscripts. But perhaps theses and dissertations could be moved over to the a category. a - Language material Used for non-manuscript language material. Manuscript language material uses code t. Includes microforms and electronic resources that are basically textual in nature, whether they are reproductions from print or originally produced. t - Manuscript language material Used for manuscript language material or a microform of manuscript language material. This category is applied to items for language material in handwriting, typescript, or computer printout including printed materials completed by hand or by keyboard. At the time it is created, this material is usually intended, either implicitly or explicitly, to exist as a single instance. Examples include marked or corrected galley and page proofs, manuscript books, legal papers, and unpublished theses and dissertations. c - Notated music Used for printed, microform, or electronic notated music. d - Manuscript notated music Used for manuscript notated music or a microform of manuscript music. e - Cartographic material Used for non-manuscript cartographic material or a microform of non-manuscript cartographic material. Includes maps, atlases, globes, digital maps, and other cartographic items. f - Manuscript cartographic material Used for manuscript cartographic material or a microform of manuscript cartographic material. Liz O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de 3/21/2013 4:23 AM 20.03.2013 15:49, Laurence S. Creider: Second, I agree that the notion of publication needs reconsideration in light of a longer consideration of the history of the book from ancient times until now. I do not think that anything fit for public reception is a workable definition. For our purposes, I think, the question is, Does it matter?. We simply need a word for the stuff we catalog, and it better be a word that is understood and taken for granted right away. If you think resource is the word, and every catalog user is comfortable with it, then fine. But is this the case? Is it not considered catalogese jargon? (Even if considering just the English speaking community.) You see, we *do* catalog lots of stuff these days that is not published in the conventional sense. All of it is, however, made available to the public, in some way or other, or else we wouldn't include it in the first place. So, is not this fact of being made available to the public a criterion that we might now simply turn around to mean published? Or, in other words, who would be helped if we made a sophisticated distinction, in the catalog, between stuff that is published and other stuff that is not, though being available or accessible just as well? For us, I think, a workable definition is one that causes us the minimum of work, and esp. so if the effect of it is minimal. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
Am 21.03.2013 12:01, schrieb Elizabeth O'Keefe: Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material? Well, apart from the difficulty of drawing it, the Lubetzkian question has to be asked: Is this dividing line necessary? B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
On 21/03/2013 12:26, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip Am 21.03.2013 12:01, schrieb Elizabeth O'Keefe: Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material? Well, apart from the difficulty of drawing it, the Lubetzkian question has to be asked: Is this dividing line necessary? /snip For a long time, publication was linked to getting copyright, making copies and distributing them. A published item had certain protections that an unpublished item did not, in this way there was a distinction between published literature and grey literature. Grey literature are/were resources that are printed and distributed but do not normally have copyright protection because it wasn't seen as worth the effort. You could also have items copyrighted but never published. Now with the latest copyright conventions, everything is automatically copyrighted from the moment it is written down--even a few thoughts jotted on the back of a napkin--and the distinction between published and unpublished materials has become much less tangible. It would seem that anything on the web is automatically published. At one organization I worked at, we concentrated on cataloging grey literature because it was so difficult to get. The web has made that literature some of the easiest to get today. The dates on a catalog record do not, and should not, have any legal standing whatsoever. The information there is only to help the users and librarians find and identify resources. The use is strictly practical and should be considered that way. Perhaps a more useful way of dealing with the issue is the cataloger should enter dates connected to the resource that will help people identify or find that resource. But catalogers spending their time trying to figure out whether a date has to do with real publication would not seem to help anyone find or identify anything. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
19.03.2013 21:58, J. McRee Elrod: 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. .. For consistency we should consider electronic theses as published. That print ones are not is a fiction, considering printouts from the online version. More generally, we might reconsider the concept of publication and define it as anything fit for public reception. And then, why not get rid of the rather pompous yet less than intuitive term resource in favor of the newly extended version of publication? (Or is it commonplace now that resource is correctly understood and taken for granted by the catalog-using public?) B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
Mac,
With 264 0, the distinction means little in RDA. Only one fixed field
and 264 2nd indicator are affected.
This is not RDA, it is MARC. I have said for some time that I think that
the whole continuum from unpublished to published needs to be rethought in
light of the history of the book (manuscripts to print to e-books).
Cataloging codes have been singularly resistant to rethinking this issue.
A theses [sic] gets more review of the faculty advisor than do most books
these days.
Believe me, that depends on the advisor and the advisor's grasp of
English. We get errors on title leaves, as well as elsewhere.
For consistency we should consider electronic theses as published.
That print ones are not is a fiction, considering printouts from the
online version.
I'm sorry, but unless you are talking about e-theses available on the web
or somehow for download, this is plain wrong. An on-demand printout does
not constitute publication, even if the item should be described as a
physical book rather than an ms or a microfilm/fiche. Your definition
would mean that a word-processed draft printed out for correction by the
author would be considered published. I don't think that either the
printout or the e-version could be considered published unless it was
placed on the web.
Larry
--
Laurence S. Creider
Interim Head
Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu
On Tue, March 19, 2013 2:58 pm, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Adam said:
Even printed theses by computer have always been considered unpublished
manuscripts rather than published textual monographs
With 264 0, the distinction means little in RDA. Only one fixed field
and 264 2nd indicator are affected.
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.
Those available online for printout may be printed more times than you
might expect.
In these days of self publishing, the number of published monographs
with good editing and peer review is declining. Based on the number of
typos I now see in most books, good editorial review seems a thing of the
past. A theses gets more review of the faculty advisor than do most
books these days.
For consistency we should consider electronic theses as published. That
print ones are not is a fiction, considering printouts from the online
version.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
ii
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
Bernhard, First off, thank you for continuing to contribute. I have learned a great deal from your posts. Second, I agree that the notion of publication needs reconsideration in light of a longer consideration of the history of the book from ancient times until now. I do not think that anything fit for public reception is a workable definition. Some person at some point in time needs to consider that the item needs to be distributed and made available to a public that is more than members of one organization. Even that definition has its problems. I think that catalogers would well to involve historians of the book and other materials in the discussion. Larry -- Laurence S. Creider Interim Head Archives and Special Collections Dept. University Library New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-4756 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Wed, March 20, 2013 12:43 am, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: 19.03.2013 21:58, J. McRee Elrod: 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. .. For consistency we should consider electronic theses as published. That print ones are not is a fiction, considering printouts from the online version. More generally, we might reconsider the concept of publication and define it as anything fit for public reception. And then, why not get rid of the rather pompous yet less than intuitive term resource in favor of the newly extended version of publication? (Or is it commonplace now that resource is correctly understood and taken for granted by the catalog-using public?) B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
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.
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
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 ~~ 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.
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
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.eduwrote: 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/**~aschiffhttp://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
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
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.eduwrote: 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/**~aschiffhttp://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
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
My understanding is that back in 2007 when the OhioLINK libraries drew up a standard for ETDs, there were many long philosophical discussions about the published vs. unpublished status. These concluded when OCLC said they consider ETDs to be published. At my library we have therefore been coding these bibs as a ever since. My question was therefore not about whether ETDs are published or unpublished; it was just to confirm that the example that used a t' was a mistake. I thought it possible there had been a change due to RDA. I have written a note to the Library of Congress Catalogers Learning Workshop, who published the examples, to see what they say. It is interesting to me that this published/unpublished understanding is not a held by all libraries. Thank you for this discussion. Joan On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: 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/**~aschiffhttp://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/~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff http://faculty.**washington.edu/~aschiffhttp://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 -- Joan Milligan Catalog and Metadata Specialist University of Dayton Libraries 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469-1360 937-229-4075 jmillig...@udayton.edu
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
Adam said:
Even printed theses by computer have always been considered unpublished
manuscripts rather than published textual monographs
With 264 0, the distinction means little in RDA. Only one fixed field
and 264 2nd indicator are affected.
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.
Those available online for printout may be printed more times than you
might expect.
In these days of self publishing, the number of published monographs
with good editing and peer review is declining. Based on the number
of typos I now see in most books, good editorial review seems a thing
of the past. A theses gets more review of the faculty advisor than
do most books these days.
For consistency we should consider electronic theses as published.
That print ones are not is a fiction, considering printouts from the
online version.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
ii
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
I think that you indicate a very interesting problem. US dissertations have been considered unpublished since universities stopped issuing them with a dissertation note. On-demand microfilms or photocopies are still considered unpublished. On the other hand, most people would consider a document's being available on the web to mean that the document has been published. Catalogers probably need to make a communal decision on this. In the meantime, get used to some inconsistency. FWIW, I reluctantly conclude that making the thesis/dissertation available through an institutional repository or via ProQuest probably constitutes publication. It is very hard to think this way, however. Part of the difficulty is that dissertations and theses do not get the editorial attention that even technical reports generally get. Part of the problem is that considering the etd to be published means that the poor author will have a much harder time getting the work accepted and credited as a book for promotion and tenure. From my perspective, the decision is not as clear-cut as one would like. -- Laurence S. Creider Interim Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept. New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-4756 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Joan Milligan wrote: Could someone confirm for me that the example for an online dissertation has an error: http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/SCT%20RDA%20Recor ds%20TG/index.html Record 5, Holzapfel, Structural Analysis of Active Site Conformations... I believe the Type should be a not t, because a dissertation is considered published when it appears online. Thank you, Joan -- Joan MilliganCatalog and Metadata Specialist University of Dayton Libraries 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469-1360937-229-4075 jmillig...@udayton.edu [dayton_logo_120x80.jpg]
