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
