It's been a long time since I agreed with Mac on much regarding
cataloging, but I'd like to agree strongly with him on this one ...
I copied everyone on Renette's cc: list, though I'm sure some of
them will not thank me for that.
My reasons for agreeing is that I have been spending the last five
years of my life working to aggregate metadata from a lot of
different sources, very little of which came from libraries. I am on
this list representing the Dublin Core community, and I suppose, by
extension, the other metadata communities who lack content standards
and are hoping that there will be something in RDA that can be useful
in their world.
It seems to me that retaining the convention of multiple versions in
the way Renette suggests is one sure way to keep RDA an exclusively
library content standard. It continues the hoary tradition of working
around the limitations of library catalogs (and library vendor
software) by kludging the data, which makes any re-use outside of
libraries extremely problematic. Yes, I agree (before somebody nails
me on this) that there are problems expressing to users the important
context of the original work in a traditional catalog environment
where reproductions are described separately, but I have some hopes
that the expanding use of FRBR models in catalogs will assist us in
this effort.
I would hate to see an option to create multiple version records--it
should be viewed as an aberrant practice, with terrifying health
warnings.
Diane Hillmann
Research Librarian
Cornell University Library
I am sending this to several other lists besides RDA-L. Apologies for
duplication. I am also cc'ing to some people who have been involved in
discussions of the Digital Library Federation's Registry of Digital Masters
Record Creation Guidelines and who I haven't seen on the RDA list. If you
wonder why in the world you got this, that's probably why! My comments
are below Mac's original post with RD beside each paragraph.
Renette
At 11:19 AM 12/30/2005, Mac Elrod wrote on the RDA-L list:
The LCRI turning AACR2 on its head for reproductions fortunately (from
my point of view) did not make it into RDA. In 2.2.2 (choice of prime
source), 2.3.1.5 (title), 2.5.0.4 (edition statement), 2.10.9.4
(series), as well as 2.12.0.4 and 4.10.2 we are told to choose the
facsimile in hand for transcription, rather than the item reproduced.
This nicely avoids the problem created by reproductions of
reproductions, attempting to follow the LCRI.
RD - I would actually like to see an option to describe the original and
include the reproduction information in a note, as in the current LCRI
1.11A, particularly for electronic reproductions. I believe that users are
most interested in the date, place of publication, publisher, etc., of the
original rather than when and by whom it was digitized. An ISBN in a note
(as specified in 2.12.0.4) is not as easily searchable as an ISBN in an 020
field.
RD - We are using a single record approach here at the University of
Chicago, adding access to the electronic version on the record for the
print version. However, if we don't have the print version (or we are
discarding the print version), we create a separate record for the
electronic version. It is much easier to derive a reproduction record from
the print version record, than to create a new record describing the
electronic version. As we move into more digitization for preservation
purposes, I think this is an important consideration.
RD - In addition, the Digital Library Federation's Registry of Digital
Masters Record Creation Guidelines available at
http://www.diglib.org/collections/reg/DigRegGuide.htm recommend describing
the original version with information on the reproduction in a 533 note.
