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.
