Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 16:33:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Kay Teel <TEELK@ELMER1.BOBST.NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Digital reproductions (CONSER recommendations)
Here are a few thoughts my boss, Sherman Clarke, and I had on
the CONSER recommendations. I should preface this by saying we
are not a CONSER library, but certainly we are a consumer of
CONSER cataloging, and we do try to follow CONSER in our serials
cataloging.
> 1. Multiple file formats. CONSER is currently using one record
> to represent all file formats for serials (e.g., ASCII,
> Postscript, hypertext), including those with html encoding.
> This is based on a belief that the file formats in which a serial
> is issued are likely to change (at least in the near future as
> technology develops) and that the information given in one record
> is adequate to inform patrons of what is available. This policy,
> which was adopted last spring, has met with wide-spread approval
> and a few strong voices of dissent. Are there further thoughts
> on this issue?
We wondered if HTML encoding actually did change the nature of
the work and constituted a new edition, but decided that if the
HTML encoding "didn't go anywhere" (i.e., the text was marked
up, and perhaps hyperlinked within itself, but not linked to
other, outside texts/resources) then it was basically the same
edition. Our idea was that for printed texts, if the text is the
same, just presented differently, it was a reproduction, and we
didn't consider coding to alter the text.
> 2. Digital reproductions.
[...]
> We are fully aware of the displeasure with the lack of a multiple
> versions solution for microforms and know that many libraries are
> now using local holdings records to cover microform reproduction
> holdings. While this works well for local needs it does not
> serve the national catalog and cannot be adopted as CONSER
> policy. What are the options for digital reproductions and are
> they different enough from microforms to enable a different
> approach for CONSER?
As a library that includes print and microform holdings on one
record, we see how, from a public service point of view, this
approach works well. We tended to see digital reproductions as
equivalent to microform reproductions, unless the text itself
was altered. The addition of illustrations, supplemental texts,
etc. would alter the text and become a new edition, requiring a
separate record (at least for us).
> Basically, the options are:
> 1) Treat like microforms--separate record based
> on original with 533
> 2) Catalog separately but base the description on the form
> of item--use 534 for details of original (this would be
> the pure AACR2 approach)
> 3) One record approach--add a 530 and 856 to the record for
> the original (the 530 would indicate something like:
> "Also available online ..." )
> 4) Indicate locally in holdings records (cannot be a
> "CONSER" approach but may be the most widely used)
Of the four, we liked #3 the best, but overall we didn't like
the single-option approach. I know that CONSER has to set a hard
and fast rule, but I personally feel that all of the above
options could validly be used for various items. That's what
cataloger judgment is for-- making these decisions.
> Questions:
> would a 530 and 856 be sufficient to meet the needs of
> your patrons?
> would it be sufficient for library access, control,
> etc.
>
> how important is the information that could not be
> included (538, 007, issuing body, etc.)?
Locally, we would try to compensate for vague information in the
bibliographic record with details in our holdings records, but I
realize that's not a solution, just a way of stepping around the
problem.
I would imagine that for some texts the producer of the
digital reproduction would be crucial and for others it wouldn't
matter. Whenever we decide to lose information, there will be
cases where that loss is unfortunate, if not drastic.
--Kay Teel
Serials Cataloger
Elmer Holmes Bobst Library
New York University
70 Washington Square South
New York City, NY 10012
teelk@elmer1.bobst.nyu.edu
