Bernhard, First off, thank you for continuing to contribute. I have learned a great deal from your posts.
Second, I agree that the notion of publication needs reconsideration in light of a longer consideration of the history of the book from ancient times until now. I do not think that "anything fit for public reception" is a workable definition. Some person at some point in time needs to consider that the item needs to be distributed and made available to a public that is more than members of one organization. Even that definition has its problems. I think that catalogers would well to involve historians of the book and other materials in the discussion. Larry -- Laurence S. Creider Interim Head Archives and Special Collections Dept. University Library New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-4756 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Wed, March 20, 2013 12:43 am, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: > 19.03.2013 21:58, J. McRee Elrod: >> >> >>> Theses are produced in one or a very few number of copies, without >>> editorial review or peer review in the same way >>> that published monographs are made. >> >> .. >> For consistency we should consider electronic theses as published. >> That print ones are not is a fiction, considering printouts from the >> online version. >> > > More generally, we might reconsider the concept of "publication" and > define it as "anything fit for public reception". > > And then, why not get rid of the rather pompous yet less than intuitive > term "resource" in favor of the newly extended version of "publication"? > (Or is it commonplace now that "resource" is correctly understood and > taken for granted by the catalog-using public?) > > > B.Eversberg >
