Difference between revisions of "6/JSC/ALA/7"

Jump to: navigation, search
Line 79: Line 79:
- Glennan (PCC) for Steven Arakawa, Yale University, 10/26/12
[[Category:Completed documents]] [[Category:6JSC]] [[Category:ALA Proposals for November 2012 JSC Meeting]]

Latest revision as of 11:54, 26 July 2013

6JSC/ALA/7 Revision of RDA 2.12.8 and 2.12.16, regarding recording ISSNs


Please include in your comments:

  • Your name/liaison organization
  • Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

Constituency Responses

Proposal and responses

Summary: All constituencies support the intent of the proposal.

BL prefers that there be an established order of priority of sources, and proposes wording. ALA position needed.

BL prefers that the instruction read "Transcribe" rather than "Record." ALA position needed.

DNB proposes to distinguish between authorized ISSN (presumably those in the ISSN database) and invalid/doubtful ISSN. ALA position needed.

-- John Attig/JSC Rep 2012/10/10


I have no particular objection to BL's proposal for; however, wouldn't the same kinds of changes be needed in - Glennan (PCC) 10/11/12

On "transcribe" vs. "record": If you can take the ISSN from any source (and not just from within the resource), I don't think "transcribe" is the correct term. - Glennan (PCC), 10/11/12

I'm not completely clear on the DNB proposal, since I think there's no difference in the end result from what ALA proposed. DNB is not suggesting two separate elements (at least not as written); instead, I think they're suggesting a priority order for what is recorded. Does the BL solution for [etc.] better address this concern? - Glennan (PCC), 10/11/12

Members of the CRCC continue to support the original proposed text without the suggested changes proposed by the BL and DNB. Below are specific comments from CRCC members -- Tarango (CRS) 10-17-2012:

I don't have any objections to the BL proposal that there be a list of preferred sources.

I prefer the use of "record" rather than "transcribe." Transcribe, I think of as being taken from the resource itself.

I'm uncertain what the DNB is proposing. I can only think of one situation where it is easy to be in doubt of the ISSN on the piece -- when there is a title change and the same ISSN is used for both titles.

In other situations, wouldn't the cataloger assume the ISSN to be accurate?

I don't agree with either of the BL proposals. I think catalogers should be able to use any available source to record what they determine to be the correct ISSN for a title, not be required to "transcribe" a potentially incorrect ISSN from particular locations on the piece used as the basis for the description.

I agree that the DNB proposal seems unnecessary. Catalogers should record what seems to be the correct ISSN based on available information, if they can find one, and someone else can correct it later if it's determined to be incorrect. I don't think we need a lot of information about sources and possible doubt.

I agree that “record” is preferable to “transcribe”. I am pretty sure “record” is in widespread use throughout RDA.

I like taking ISSN from any source. For ISSNs it is a logical approach; might be ISSN portal, the piece in hand, etc., either of these two examples are equally authoritative under most circumstances, but does often depend on the origin of the material.

I am also not sure of the DNB proposal; presently you can use MARC, 022 to indicate invalid vs authorized ISSNs, but indicating this in RDA seems unnecessary.

RDA 2.12 is all about the series statement. Traditionally this has been a transcription area with emphasis on recording/transcribing what is on the manifestation being described. In this area it is not necessary to verify the correctness of the found information nor to look in outside sources for authorized information. The place for recording authorized identifiers for the series is in chapter 25, Related Works. For this reason the original ALA proposal was probably not necessary. The BL's order of sources is not needed and is certainly overkill in this area. DNB's proposal seems to be in the wrong place. It might be more applicable to 2.15. --John Hostage 11:25, 17 October 2012 (PDT) (AALL)

John's reminder of what we're really talking about here is helpful. We approved this on e-mail without any discussion, but this is another one of those proposals where the "background and rationale" doesn't really explain why the proposal is a good idea - not that that seems to have bothered the JSC. Why do we want to supply a series ISSN that doesn't appear on the piece here? What would we do if an incorrect series ISSN appeared on the piece but we knew what the correct ISSN was from other sources? If we have the option to provide controlled series access elsewhere in the record (whether individual agencies decide to do that or not), potentially including the ISSN (24.4.1), why is it important to do anything other than transcribe whatever we actually see here? --Robert J. Rendall 12:13, 17 October 2012 (PDT)

Not necessarily disagreeing with John or Robert but offering the following. Is the ISSN a component of the series statement or is it really a distinct separate element that happens to be recorded in the same MARC field as the series statement? If we agree it is separate, then I see no issue with the series statement being "transcribed" and the ISSN being recorded. Then there is the not uncommon situation where an incorrect ISSN is provided on some issues and the correct one (or other incorrect) provided on others. Given all are found within the resources, which do you "transcribe?" I suppose a literal application of a "transcription" rule would result in giving all of them which just is a mess. My own view of the necessity of allowing the cataloger to provide the correct data rather than transcribing the incorrect data is efficiencies of effort and supporting the accuracy of linking. While yes, libraries have the option of adding authorized access points where the correct ISSN can be records, it is much more efficient to simply record it with the series statement. -- Tarango (CRS) 10-17-2012

Yes, I think the "real" ISSN is a separate element from the series statement that might or might not contain a correct or incorrect "transcribed" ISSN from a single source. And the instruction for recording the real ISSN is in 24.4.1, so we don't need to duplicate that with instructions about supplying it from outside the resource in 2.12.8. If you're not recording a controlled form of the series title in your record, you could still, following 24.4 ("using one or more of the conventions described") and in MARC terms, enter an 830 with $x and the "real" ISSN and nothing else. --Robert J. Rendall 14:03, 17 October 2012 (PDT)

Bringing in issues related to multiple issues is confusing a serials problem with what is essentially a monograph question in 2.12. Yes, you can also record a series statement for serials and multipart monographs, but we have instructions in 2.1 for how to deal with that. I'm all for providing identifiers and linking information, but such data should go in the proper place, and the series statement is not it. --John Hostage 14:16, 17 October 2012 (PDT) (AALL)

If we are correct in thinking that recording the correct series ISSN for a resource that does not appear on the piece is already addressed elsewhere in RDA, then I think we should probably withdraw this proposal. --Robert J. Rendall 07:48, 22 October 2012 (PDT)

(As usual I see things from the online point of view). In this case the series ISSN that you see on a particular online monograph to be transcribed/recorded is often not the “right” ISSN for the particular format. Yes, sometimes the format of the ISSN is identified, but often it is not. The saving grace here is that, in my opinion, the importance of the ISSN is based more on the content, not the particular format.

As to the transcribing/recording issue, wouldn’t it be true that if you were taking the ISSN from the source itself, that it would be transcribed; if you were taking the ISSN from an external source that it would be recorded. In either case there is no difference in how it is recorded is there?

I agree with John Hostage that an order of sources is overkill.

- Glennan (PCC) for Becky Culbertson, UCSD, 10/25/12

I agree with the Hostage & Rendell positions. RDA seems to be clear on series ISSNs in the series statement -- record ISSN as it appears. In context, “record” means transcribe. The interpretation of 490 $x as an identifier is inconsistent with RDA’s general approach to transcription; trying to make $x an identifier is reminiscent of the use of 440 as simultaneously a transcription and an access point. It appears that in this case even JSC is being influenced by the legacy of MARC. Better to add a note and enter the correct ISSN in 830 when the series statement has an ISSN that is not supported by official external resources. If it is agreed that the ISSN in the series statement has the sole function of being descriptive, the sources are limited to the resource itself, and recording an ISSN from an external source in 490 would require bracketing the number. It follows that the order of priority for sources for the ISSN be the same as the sources for the series statement, so I agree with BL, as well as BL’s proposal to use “transcription” instead of “record.”
