Cataloging Records for Remote-Access Electronic Serials (Wayne Jones) ERCELAA@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu 08 Feb 1995 02:44 UTC
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 11:36:00 -0800 From: Jones Wayne <WAJ@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA> Subject: Cataloguing records for remote-access electronic serials X-To: CONSERlist <consrlst@sun7.loc.gov>, Emedia <emedia@vax1.elon.edu>, SERIALST <serialst@uvmvm.uvm.edu>, VPIEJ-L <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu> X-cc: Yuen Christina <CHY@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA>, McKeen Elizabeth <EMK@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA>, Meldrum Jan <JAM@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA>, Pickett Susan <SUS@ABS.NLC-BNC.CA> To: Regina, Les, Melissa, Bill From: Wayne Jones, Head, Serials Section, National Library of Canada; wayne.jones@nlc-bnc.ca Here are my own opinions on your multiple versions question. This opinion is not necessarily identical to that of the NLC, and in fact are only my thoughts right now: I reserve the right to change my mind!:) Thanks for soliciting opinion on this important question. ((This message is cross-posted to EMEDIA, CONSERLST, VPIEJ-L, and SERIALST)) ..... If the multiple versions question had already been solved, not only for remote-access electronic serials but also for relatively mundane publications and their versions, then of course there should be only ONE bibliographic record for all these versions, with "sub-records" within that bibliographic record for each version. Given that the multiple versions problem stil exists, though, I think that there should be a separate bibliographic record for each distinct version of an electronic serial. A separate version should be judged on two separate criteria: substantial differences in intellectual content; and/or significant technical or access differences. Differences in intellectual content should be handled similarly to the way they are handled for print etc. materials. Different geographic editions, different language editions, etc., get different records. An added consideration for remote access serials is that any issue may not really be "stable" in the way that print etc. versions are: the editor may revise or add to or delete from an issue, perhaps from a desire to distinguish between a "preliminary" edition and a "final" edition, so that, for example, the vol. 1, no 4 you access one month may not be identical to the vol. 1, no. 4 you access in a later month. Personally, I don't think that this would constitute separate versions or consequently necessitate separate records. If some bibliographic institution wanted to maintain the preliminary as well as the final views of that serial, they could do so in their own archive, but I don't think there should be separate records. Significant technical or access differences should also necessitate separate records. *Significant* ones only, though. For example, if a remote-access serial existed in Hypertext, ASCII, PostScript, Word, and WordPerfect versions, I would say -- keeping in mind that my knowledge of PostScript is somewhere between nil and meagrely informed -- that there are 3 versions (and 3 records) here. One for the HyperText, one for PostScript, and one for the other ones. I don't think differences in text-formatting are alone enough to qualify for versions. w *** From: Regina Reynolds, Head, US ISSN Center (NSDP) Les Hawkins, Senior Cataloger, US ISSN Center Melissa Beck, CONSER Cataloger, UCLA Bill Anderson, CONSER Specialist, LC To: CONSRLST EMEDIA SERIALST VPIEJ-L Re: Multiple versions for remote access serials Date: Jan. 3, 1994 The authors of this posting are associated with various institutions in CONSER. We are considering some of the problems associated with cataloging remote access serials and would like to generate discussion on the issues described below. We plan future postings to solicit input on various areas of cataloging these serials. Please reply to your listserv. How many catalog records should be created for remote access serials that appear in multiple electronic versions? What criteria should be used for deciding when variations in file content, hardware or software requirements, or intellectual content necessitate separate records? In assigning the ISSN, NSDP has considered World Wide Web versions of a title to be separate bibliographic entities from plain ASCII versions and has thus created separate records and assigned separate ISSN. This decision is based on the fact that World Wide Web documents can link to, or "contain" a variety of file types, -- sound, image, video -- as part of a given issue. There are also differences in hardware or software requirements. What is to be done with other versions that seem to be less different? How do we treat remote access serials that are available in different text formatting versions (plain ASCII, WordPerfect, and Postscript, for example). How many records are necessary to serve the needs of local vs shared cataloging environments? What other suggestions do you have for treating versions of remote access serials?