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
Kevin Randall said:
Compared to the print world, one could argue that we are dealing with
a greater number of manifestations ...
True. These various differing manifestations are combined by OCLC
into one supposedly provider neutral record.
The worst cases we've encountered are Credo resources.
There is the inside of a back cover and the outside of a back cover.
So Page [3] and Page [4] actually do make sense.
Michele Estep
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
Savannah College of Art and Design®
Jen Library
201 E. Broughton St.
Savannah, GA 31401
T: 912.525.4659 - Fax:
There is the inside of a back cover and then there is the outside of a back
cover.
So Page [3] and Page [4] of cover actually do make sense (with or without
brackets).
Michele Estep
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
Savannah College of Art and Design®
Jen Library
201 E.
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
I agree that those differences matter; it's one of the reasons those
much-maligned intermediary menus stay up.
But in the current, record-based environment, I'm not sure if it's such a great
idea to have each separate manifestation on its own record. A lot of the data
will be redundant; and
Michele Estep wrote, “So Page [3] and Page [4] of cover actually do make sense
(with or without brackets).”
Sure, if you can force yourself look at a book that way. But most of the users
I’ve met don’t see the back cover as a continuation of the front; if they
distinguish the cover at all,
7 matches
Mail list logo
