Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
Jim, actually, when writing my last mail I was asking myself whether I should include a sentence on the question of which is the most prominent position. Because it's true that the front cover for an "ordinary person" (not hindered by a librarian's education) may be as important or even more important as the title page. I have made this observation myself when teaching cataloguing: When I hand a book to a student in the first lesson and ask him or her where we should look in order to make our description, some of them point to the front cover. So I agree that it would be very useful to do some research in that matter. And perhaps we really need to adjust our view of what is most prominent. But I'd still argue that not all title versions have the same "authoritative-ness" (is there such a word in English?), and that non-librarians perceive this as well. I still think the spine title, or a shortened title version on the half title page are good examples for titles of lesser importance. Another might be "colloquial" title variants. E.g. in Germany there is a directory of German libraries and members of the Society of German Librarians. Many people call it the "green bible", because at some time it used to come with a green cover. Perhaps this title is used more often than the "real" title on the title page (which is something like "Yearbook of German libraries"). But still I believe people would find it weird to see this title prominently in a catalogue display. Heidrun James Weinheimer Weinheimer wrote: This is a provocative discussion. I agree with what you say, but I would like to make the following observation On 26/10/2012 22:30, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: James Weinheimer wrote: It occurs to me that we have the concept of *the* title of an item but as we see here, there are problems with choosing a single title and there always have been. Why do we have to pick one as being *the* title? We always have but perhaps matters could be reconsidered. New systems allow novel possibilities. Let's imagine something rather blasphemous and almost impossible to conceive of in a card environment: that 245a and b could be repeatable. As a result, all 246s (and 740s?) would be equal titles to what is in the 245 now. This would mean that when there is more than one title, there is not *the* title of an item but different titles of equal worth. And each 245 could have its own note explaining where it comes from, as they do now, perhaps in a subfield i, as in the 246. For retrieval, it certainly doesn't (or shouldn't) matter which title you use. But I'm not so sure about display. Would we really do our readers a favour if we presented all titles as having equal worth (perhaps in an alphabetical or random order)? I think most users would agree that a title on the title page is more authoritative than e.g. one on the spine. If those responsible for the resource wouldn't have wanted us to associate it primarily with this version of the title, they wouldn't have put it in the most prominent position. Not disputing this, but I do wonder if our idea that the title page is the most "prominent" is based more on historical circumstance and not what the public thinks is most important. I am sure that all on this list know the history of the title page, the half-title page, etc. that the title page originally served the purpose of the splashy cover that we have today, in the days when books were sold unbound, and had those magnificent title pages. Originally, the title page was to help sell the book. (Here is a nice one from a very famous chess book: http://www.sg1871loeberitz.de/fotoreports/fotoreports11/selenus_gr/titelblatt.jpg) The title page does not serve that purpose today; publishers put the same emphasis and care on p.1 of cover, or the jacket, because they know the cover is what is most important to the public and then they do relatively little with title pages. When I was first learning to catalog, I was surprised to find that catalogers said that the title page title, which you could find only after leafing through a few pages into the book, was the most important one and actually called it "prominent"(!). In my eyes, it was anything but. Before I cataloged, I never really looked at the title page of the book. I honestly do not remember when I was a student and made a citation for a bibliography in a paper, if I copied the title off of the cover or took it off of the title page. I suspect I took it from the cover because it would have been to difficult to hold the book open while I wrote or typed. Later when I first started considering the catalog idea of "prominent", I remember thinking that perhaps the most prominent part of a book for the public is the spine, since that is the first thing they see and is the real access point into the book. When a book is too skinny to have a spine title, it is a *lot* harder to find on the s
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
This is a provocative discussion. I agree with what you say, but I would like to make the following observation On 26/10/2012 22:30, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: > James Weinheimer wrote: >> It occurs to me that we have the concept of *the* title of an item >> but as we see here, there are problems with choosing a single title >> and there always have been. Why do we have to pick one as being *the* >> title? We always have but perhaps matters could be reconsidered. New >> systems allow novel possibilities. Let's imagine something rather >> blasphemous and almost impossible to conceive of in a card >> environment: that 245a and b could be repeatable. As a result, all >> 246s (and 740s?) would be equal titles to what is in the 245 now. >> This would mean that when there is more than one title, there is not >> *the* title of an item but different titles of equal worth. And each >> 245 could have its own note explaining where it comes from, as they >> do now, perhaps in a subfield i, as in the 246. > > For retrieval, it certainly doesn't (or shouldn't) matter which title > you use. But I'm not so sure about display. Would we really do our > readers a favour if we presented all titles as having equal worth > (perhaps in an alphabetical or random order)? I think most users would > agree that a title on the title page is more authoritative than e.g. > one on the spine. If those responsible for the resource wouldn't have > wanted us to associate it primarily with this version of the title, > they wouldn't have put it in the most prominent position. Not disputing this, but I do wonder if our idea that the title page is the most "prominent" is based more on historical circumstance and not what the public thinks is most important. I am sure that all on this list know the history of the title page, the half-title page, etc. that the title page originally served the purpose of the splashy cover that we have today, in the days when books were sold unbound, and had those magnificent title pages. Originally, the title page was to help sell the book. (Here is a nice one from a very famous chess book: http://www.sg1871loeberitz.de/fotoreports/fotoreports11/selenus_gr/titelblatt.jpg) The title page does not serve that purpose today; publishers put the same emphasis and care on p.1 of cover, or the jacket, because they know the cover is what is most important to the public and then they do relatively little with title pages. When I was first learning to catalog, I was surprised to find that catalogers said that the title page title, which you could find only after leafing through a few pages into the book, was the most important one and actually called it "prominent"(!). In my eyes, it was anything but. Before I cataloged, I never really looked at the title page of the book. I honestly do not remember when I was a student and made a citation for a bibliography in a paper, if I copied the title off of the cover or took it off of the title page. I suspect I took it from the cover because it would have been to difficult to hold the book open while I wrote or typed. Later when I first started considering the catalog idea of "prominent", I remember thinking that perhaps the most prominent part of a book for the public is the spine, since that is the first thing they see and is the real access point into the book. When a book is too skinny to have a spine title, it is a *lot* harder to find on the shelf. Of course, if the original jacket or cover has been discarded and people are stuck looking at library binding, then it blows my cover title theory to pieces Nevertheless, I think it would be so useful to cataloging, especially at this pivotal moment, to do at least some research on the public to find out how they relate to these assumptions that have been handed down to catalogers, sometimes from the earliest days. -- *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] First issue vs. latest issue
James Weinheimer wrote: These sorts of practices always interest me and I try to come up with ideas that bring them together. One way of looking at this would be that a record for a serial is the manifestation, and that this single manifestation has variant titles (not necessarily earlier ones, but variants), similar to monographs that have spine titles, a variant title on p. 4 of cover, and so on. That is how AACR2 and RDA consider them. But the Germans (and I assume others--many?) would consider them in the way you describe. In RDA there is a difference between "variant title" (2.3.6) and "earlier title proper" (2.3.7, only possible for integrating resources at the moment) or "later title proper" (2.3.8) - they are seen as separate elements. So I don't see a fundamental difference here between the Anglo-American and the German view of things. It occurs to me that we have the concept of *the* title of an item but as we see here, there are problems with choosing a single title and there always have been. Why do we have to pick one as being *the* title? We always have but perhaps matters could be reconsidered. New systems allow novel possibilities. Let's imagine something rather blasphemous and almost impossible to conceive of in a card environment: that 245a and b could be repeatable. As a result, all 246s (and 740s?) would be equal titles to what is in the 245 now. This would mean that when there is more than one title, there is not *the* title of an item but different titles of equal worth. And each 245 could have its own note explaining where it comes from, as they do now, perhaps in a subfield i, as in the 246. For retrieval, it certainly doesn't (or shouldn't) matter which title you use. But I'm not so sure about display. Would we really do our readers a favour if we presented all titles as having equal worth (perhaps in an alphabetical or random order)? I think most users would agree that a title on the title page is more authoritative than e.g. one on the spine. If those responsible for the resource wouldn't have wanted us to associate it primarily with this version of the title, they wouldn't have put it in the most prominent position. But things are indeed different with earlier and later titles. You could say that B, C, and D from my example (minor variations in a journal title, not leading to title splits) are on a level of equal importance, with all of them stemming from the chief source of information of the relevant issues. What makes them different is the chronological dimension. Therefore I would readily accept a display as you have suggested, giving the different titles closer together than they are now (with one in the main part and the others in footnotes): it could be something like: Title proper: B (time period) Title proper: C (time period) Title proper: D (time period) Users could be given a choice as to whether the list should start with the oldest or the latest title. I'm fairly certain that most would prefer the latest, so the default display could be D - C - B. Theoretically (i.e. if we take the effort), the complete bibliographical information for all chronological stages could be stored with the same detail of description in repeatable and identically structured fields, always with an indication about the time period for which this information is releveant. We do something like that in the publication area. Here's part of a record in the ZDB (in the internal format of the database): 4030 Malden, Mass. $n Blackwell 4035 Beverly Hills, Calif. [u.a.] $n Sage $h -1982 4035 Guildford $n Butterworth $h 1983-1990,2 4035 Guildford $n Butterworth-Heinemann $h 1990,3-1991 4035 Cambridge [u.a.] $n Blackwell $h 1992-1996 Field 4030 gives the latest Information, i.e. the current publisher and place of publication. The 4035s (which are repeatable) give the same information for earlier stages, including a time specification in $h. Unfortunately, it is not always done as precisely as you see it here. Sometimes it just says "$h anfangs" (i.e. "in the beginning"), so that we don't know when exactly the change took place. This is not all that novel of an idea, since the VIAF brings together different headings for a name, and does not choose any as *the* form, and these can be displayed in different ways. With respect to personal names, I quite agree: If identifiers are used instead of text strings (authorized access points) for expressing relationships, it really should no longer be necessary to decide on a main form. The different forms of a name could be coded, e.g. as to their language (e.g. "Horace $l eng" vs. "Horaz $l ger" vs. "Horatius Flaccus, Quintus $l lat"). Then a user could set his or her preferences for display accordingly, e.g. "if there is an English form, choose this for display". Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Informati
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
John Hostage 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. That has crossed my mind as well: Perhaps we should submit a proposal for an alternative rule, which would allow the description to be based on the latest issue instead of the first. After reading the comments on the list, I feel this might indeed be worth trying. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
On 25/10/2012 15:11, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: > Let's take the following example: > > A becomes B (major change) > B becomes C (minor change) > C becomes D (minor change) > D becomes E (major change) > > This leads to the following three entities: > > Entity 1 (A) > Entity 2 (B, C and D) > Entity 3 (E) > > For the three entities, three records are created. There are links > between them, so in a catalogue you can easily jump between them. > > Now consider entity 2. According to RDA, it looks like this: > Title proper: B > Later title proper: C > Later title proper: D > > In a conventional display, B would be given in the title area, whereas > C and D would be shown as notes. > > Now according to our practice, the entity looks like this: > Title proper: D > Earlier title proper: B > Earlier title proper: C These sorts of practices always interest me and I try to come up with ideas that bring them together. One way of looking at this would be that a record for a serial is the manifestation, and that this single manifestation has variant titles (not necessarily earlier ones, but variants), similar to monographs that have spine titles, a variant title on p. 4 of cover, and so on. That is how AACR2 and RDA consider them. But the Germans (and I assume others--many?) would consider them in the way you describe. One of the first things catalogers must do when cataloging is determine the chief source of information. This can be easy but is always tricky with serials and other continuations of course, since there are many more options: the "chief source" is not only on a certain page of the issue, but there also the problem of choosing the first or last issue of the continuation (for textual materials). It occurs to me that we have the concept of *the* title of an item but as we see here, there are problems with choosing a single title and there always have been. Why do we have to pick one as being *the* title? We always have but perhaps matters could be reconsidered. New systems allow novel possibilities. Let's imagine something rather blasphemous and almost impossible to conceive of in a card environment: that 245a and b could be repeatable. As a result, all 246s (and 740s?) would be equal titles to what is in the 245 now. This would mean that when there is more than one title, there is not *the* title of an item but different titles of equal worth. And each 245 could have its own note explaining where it comes from, as they do now, perhaps in a subfield i, as in the 246. This is not all that novel of an idea, since the VIAF brings together different headings for a name, and does not choose any as *the* form, and these can be displayed in different ways. I also keep referring to Thomas Hyde's catalog of the Bodleian Library where his name headings actually included the cross references! http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2011/09/re-objection-to-authors-birth-year_28.html, with the example of his heading for Roger Bacon: "Rogerus Baconus, seu Bachonus sive Bacconus". This kind of heading could be done today. For instance, choosing Thomas a Kempis from the VIAF, it could display as: Author: "Thomas, a` Kempis, 1380-1471, or Thomas, a Kempis, or Thomas à Kempis (1379-1471), or Tomás( Kempenský, 1379-1471, or Tomás de Kempis, ca. 1380-1471, or Thomas a Kempis, ca 1380-1471". If there are too many forms, there can always be a "more..." option as we see in many pages on the web. This would be an example of handling all headings equally and the first could display, e.g. taken from the country information from your IP address. This kind of situation could work more simply for titles since if the 245ab were made repeatable, it would just be a matter then of how to display them. There is already the example of Dublin Core which allows all elements to be repeated, including the title. In your example: RDA: Title proper: B Later title proper: C Later title proper: D German: Title proper: D Earlier title proper: B Earlier title proper: C it could be something like: Title proper: B (time period) Title proper: C (time period) Title proper: D (time period) and the style sheet could order the titles however the library would want. The display could also follow something like Thomas Hyde's name headings: Title: "Title B", or "Title C", or "Title D" (in any order the library chooses) Just sharing some thoughts. -- *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] First issue vs. latest issue
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: 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. 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 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
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
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
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
Heidrun said:
>... 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).
The difficulty with latest issue, is that the latest issue today, this
week, this month, or this year is not the latest issue tomorrow, next
week, next month, or next year.
Our clients too want current publisher (as for integrating resources).
We have been breaking the AACR2 rule by changing serial 260$b to agree
with their present source of the serial. The repeating 264 with first
indicators for earlier, intervening, and current publisher, solves
that problem. We can return to a abiding by the rules.
We use 246 for minor title changes. Whether first is in 245 and
change in 246, or the reverse, makes little difference to searching.
Field 264 first and second indicators (also allowing imprint for
unpublished material) is one of the few improvements represented by
RDA. Too bad both indicators were not added to 260, with 260$e$f$g
removed. It would have greatly simplified integration of RDA records
with legacy records, and created no change for a majority of materials
which have only one publisher.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
Prior to 1981, Anglo-American practice was to describe a serial based on the latest volume (AACR1 rule 160B). This differed from the practice for multipart monographs, which were usually described based on the first volume (rule 131C1). With the adoption of AACR2, serials practice was brought into greater alignment with monograph practice and so was based on the first issue (AACR2 rule 1.0A2). At the time, it was also thought desirable to be in alignment with the practice of the ISSN Network, which does not revise the key title of a serial if there is a minor title change. The International Standard Bibliographic Description for Serials--ISBD(S)--originally based the description on the latest issue, but now it too uses the "first or earliest issue or part" (Consolidated ISBD 0.4.1). It might well be time to re-examine this practice, given that it arose in a world where the updating of bibliographic records was a much more labor-intensive process than it is today. A related question would be whether the RDA title proper of a serial must correspond (roughly) to the ISSN Network's key title or whether it is enough that both systems apply the same rules covering minor title variations. Obviously, in German-speaking countries it is felt that the latter is sufficient. Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) -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 6:43 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue Mary L. Mastraccio wrote: > Although I understand the logic of first issue, I agree with Germany's logic > that the latest issue is the current valid information so should be the basis > of cataloging. "Current" records when cataloged can become out of date over > time but the record [assuming it is in a cloud] could be updated as needed > over time and benefit everyone with little effort. Yes, and the workflows as they now stand in Germany (which I tried to explain in my last, longish mail) can perhaps be seen as a first step to such a system. Of course, up to now we put this into effect with conventional database technology only. Also, the ZDB is, in a way, a closed system (although every library can become a member, and it's even free of charge). It would certainly have to develop into something different, probably using a semantic web environment. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
Mary L. Mastraccio wrote: Although I understand the logic of first issue, I agree with Germany's logic that the latest issue is the current valid information so should be the basis of cataloging. "Current" records when cataloged can become out of date over time but the record [assuming it is in a cloud] could be updated as needed over time and benefit everyone with little effort. Yes, and the workflows as they now stand in Germany (which I tried to explain in my last, longish mail) can perhaps be seen as a first step to such a system. Of course, up to now we put this into effect with conventional database technology only. Also, the ZDB is, in a way, a closed system (although every library can become a member, and it's even free of charge). It would certainly have to develop into something different, probably using a semantic web environment. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
James Weinheimer wrote: So it is more of a difference in what is considered a minor change. No, actually we've got exactly the same rules for what is considered a major change and what is seen as a minor change. I believe there used to be some differences, but since 2007 we've been using the ISBD rules, and thus have adapted to international standards. Therefore, the entities should be the same in AACR2/RDA and our rules. Let's take the following example: A becomes B (major change) B becomes C (minor change) C becomes D (minor change) D becomes E (major change) This leads to the following three entities: Entity 1 (A) Entity 2 (B, C and D) Entity 3 (E) For the three entities, three records are created. There are links between them, so in a catalogue you can easily jump between them. Now consider entity 2. According to RDA, it looks like this: Title proper: B Later title proper: C Later title proper: D In a conventional display, B would be given in the title area, whereas C and D would be shown as notes. Now according to our practice, the entity looks like this: Title proper: D Earlier title proper: B Earlier title proper: C So, the information given is the same, but it's differently presented: In RDA, the oldest version is given prominence, whereas according to our rules the latest version is given prominence. So, if I may revise my earlier question: When a serial has minor title changes: A to B to C to D (D is the latest version) and a library has only A and B, I am still interested in what the library does. Is the library supposed to add a title reference from Title D? This would be easy in the card catalog, but perhaps more difficult in the OPAC. The entity would then, in our rules, look like this: Title proper: D Earlier title proper: A Earlier title proper: B Earlier title proper: C The record would look identical in all libraries which have holdings for the entity. It doesn't matter whether a library owns issues only for one or some of the four stages. Let's assume that library X stopped purchasing the serial when it was still called "B". At that time, the record in the ZDB (and also in the local ILS of library X) looked like this: Title proper: B Earlier title proper: A But at the moment when the title changes to C, some other library Y (which still subscribes to the serial) will make the following change in the master record in the ZDB: Title proper: C Earlier title proper: A Earlier title proper: B Library X doesn't have to actively "do" anything with its own record: It will automatically get an updated copy of the record delivered from the ZDB to its own local ILS. The same will happen when the title is changed to D: Title proper: D Earlier title proper: A Earlier title proper: B Earlier title proper: C But if there is a major change from D to E, a new record will be created in the ZDB. Library X will, of course, not get a copy of this record (as it doesn't have holdings for this entity). But it will get an updated record for the earlier entity. This will now also include the information that the entity D (with earlier titles A, B and C) now has a successor E. Oh dear, I probably have you all confused by now ... Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
Heidrun Wiesenmüller asked regarding serial records: 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? Although I understand the logic of first issue, I agree with Germany's logic that the latest issue is the current valid information so should be the basis of cataloging. "Current" records when cataloged can become out of date over time but the record [assuming it is in a cloud] could be updated as needed over time and benefit everyone with little effort. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging & Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
On 25/10/2012 10:58, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
> James Weinheimer wrote:
>>
>> A question:
>>
>> When a serial has title changes A to B to C to D (D is the latest
>> title) and a library has only A and B, what does a library do now?
>
> Firstly, bear in mind that of course we also have split entries, so if
> there is a major change, a new record will be created.
>
> I was only talking about minor title changes, e.g. from "Deutsche
> Nationalbibliographie" (German national bibliography) with "ph" to
> "Deutsche Nationalbibliografie" with "f" (which is the more modern
> spelling variant in German). In cases such as this, the local
> catalogue would still show the latest variant ("f") in the main body,
> even if the library in question in fact does only own issues with the
> "ph" spelling. The "ph"-variant would only be shown in a note (e.g.:
> "Proper title until 2002: Deutsche Nationalbibliographie"). And, of
> course, the "ph"-variant is also indexed in the OPACs. Therefore, a
> user searching for the older title variant will also retrieve the record.
>
> I'm not a serials specialist myself, but I don't think this causes any
> problems for users or librarians: After all, the OPAC doesn't give an
> incorrect bibliographical information (it is true that the title is
> now spelled with "f", even if the library has stopped acquiring the
> serial). Actually, I think it's much more confusing the other way
> round: Somebody looks for the current title of a serial and is then
> perhaps presented with a rather old-fashioned looking variant.
So it is more of a difference in what is considered a minor change. So,
if I may revise my earlier question:
When a serial has minor title changes: A to B to C to D (D is the latest
version) and a library has only A and B, I am still interested in what
the library does. Is the library supposed to add a title reference from
Title D? This would be easy in the card catalog, but perhaps more
difficult in the OPAC.
Is there still catalog maintenance done on these serials that are, from
the library's perspective, dead?
I am not judging at all--I just find different bibliographic practices
fascinating.
--
*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] First issue vs. latest issue
James Weinheimer wrote:
A question:
When a serial has title changes A to B to C to D (D is the latest
title) and a library has only A and B, what does a library do now?
Firstly, bear in mind that of course we also have split entries, so if
there is a major change, a new record will be created.
I was only talking about minor title changes, e.g. from "Deutsche
Nationalbibliographie" (German national bibliography) with "ph" to
"Deutsche Nationalbibliografie" with "f" (which is the more modern
spelling variant in German). In cases such as this, the local catalogue
would still show the latest variant ("f") in the main body, even if the
library in question in fact does only own issues with the "ph" spelling.
The "ph"-variant would only be shown in a note (e.g.: "Proper title
until 2002: Deutsche Nationalbibliographie"). And, of course, the
"ph"-variant is also indexed in the OPACs. Therefore, a user searching
for the older title variant will also retrieve the record.
I'm not a serials specialist myself, but I don't think this causes any
problems for users or librarians: After all, the OPAC doesn't give an
incorrect bibliographical information (it is true that the title is now
spelled with "f", even if the library has stopped acquiring the serial).
Actually, I think it's much more confusing the other way round: Somebody
looks for the current title of a serial and is then perhaps presented
with a rather old-fashioned looking variant.
Heidrun
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
On 25/10/2012 08:20, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: > 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. A question: When a serial has title changes A to B to C to D (D is the latest title) and a library has only A and B, what does a library do now? My own experience is that library users rarely understand the 780/785 information and would actually be better served by latest entry since the idea of the serial is much clearer, although there are differing points of view on that. Today, *in theory*, (I emphasize "in theory") it would be possible to generate latest entry records from the 780/785 information. -- *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
