2 messages, 183 lines:
(1)-------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:45:16 -0500
From: Beth Guay <bg53@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject: cataloging online databases as serials
Oh boy, I am so happy to hear from you all. I am particularly
interested in Kevin Randall's thoughts, which I tend to share. Yes
yes yes, nor do I see the distintion between "computer file" and
"serial". Indeed, that's what format integration is all about. Kevin
wrote earlier
" Like Crystal Graham, who has been trying
to get the world moving on resolving this bibliographic-level
issue, I believe that these things lie somewhere in-between.
However, rather than her working term "bibliographic
hermaphrodites", I would prefer something a little more
library-jargon-like, such as "dynamic entity". A new
bibliographic level would take care of this, I think; with
format integration, all necessary MARC elements are available
in all of the formats, so using the computer file format would
give no restrictions."
Kevin, I think Crystal's description is perfect, its fashionable,
but the jargon doesn't fit into our library domain. Let's take the
analogy one step further. If ER is as true to reality that I think
it is, then the medical community would use its expertise to shape the
baby hermaphrodite into one gender or the other. I think that's
what we should do here. We can certainly expand on the
characteristics which define the child as acceptable as one gender
or the other, how about loosening the definition of a serial by
demarking an online database as a monographic serial? (That's my
personal preference as you can see, but I'm open for persuasive
discussion to go the other way). I think that expanding the
definition of serial and/or monograph would be much less labor
intensive than adding a new bibliographic level.
I want to thank everyone who's responded to my "venting." Life is
so much better than it was before I had the privilege to be on the
serials list. --Beth Guay
----------------------
Beth Guay
Serials Cataloger
University of Maryland at College Park
bg53@umail.umd.edu
(2)----------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:38:00 -0800
From: Crystal Graham <Crystal_Graham@UCSDLIBRARY.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Cataloging online databases as serials
---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes ---------------------------
From: Crystal Graham at UCSDLIBRARY
Date: 1/9/97 6:33PM
To: serialst@uvmvm.uv at @UCSD
To: Linda Barnhart
To: Margaret Christean
To: Ryan Finnerty
To: Becky Ringler
To: Crystal Graham
Subject: Cataloging online databases as serials
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USMARC colleagues:
I'm forwarding a posting sent to Serialist that relates to 97-7. At the bottom
I've included the original postings to which we're replying, which you may want
to read first. I'd like to get the systems folks and the serials catalogers
talking to each other! Crystal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like UCSD has to 'fess up. We are the creators of the MELVYL
PsycINFO database record cited as a precedent for treating an online
database as a serial. We created this back in 1994 when we first
entered the brave new world of computer file cataloging. Since then
our thinking has evolved, so we now disavow that record. (In fact, I
have just "replaced" it using Bib lvl: m, to emphasize our chagrin and
reflect our current practice).
As Kevin notes, we have difficulty putting these databases into a
traditional category. The Balance point column of the v. 22, no. 1
(spring 1996) issue of Serials Review deals with defining electronic
serials. Becky Ringler and I argue for a new category which we called
"bibliographic hermaphrodites" since these entities have
characteristics of both serials and monographs. Less sexy
appellations are "dynamic entity" (per Kevin's message) and "updating
publications" (used by Jean Hirons for a paper she and I are currently
writing).
We contend that these publications can't be cataloged as serials
because they don't have a succession of issues, but behave instead
like loose-leafs, where the updates are swallowed up by the basic
publication. Cataloging formulae like "Description based on earliest
issue" and "Successive entry" don't work, for the updates cannot be
identified, accessed, or used separately from the whole.
We're less confident about websites that contain distinguishable
issues -- should those be cataloged as serials (with the chief source
the first issue)? or monographs (with the chief source the title on
the homepage)? or some new approach?
This whole conundrum is further complicated by the MARBI proposal 97-3
(gopher://marvel.loc.gov:70/00/.listarch/usmarc/97-3.doc) which
suggests that content is more important than carrier and these
publications should be regarded as text (Type:a) with the computer
file type regarded as a secondary aspect (if at all). I'm all in
favor of that, particularly because it would make it easier to use a
"multiple versions" approach putting holdings of original print and
digitized versions on a single bib record. But since there are
separate books and serials formats, it will heighten the importance of
the choice for monographic or serial treatment (as opposed to putting
records on a Type:m computer files format, with seriality as a
secondary aspect).
Complete abolition of formats is a nice ideal, but we learned in the
process of format integration that format codes are so deeply inbedded
in our systems that it's just not realistic. They are used in divided
databases (e.g., CONSER), for limiting searches, for serials control
systems, labelling programs, union listing, ad infinitum.
In sum, it is UCSD's opinion that a database with no distinguishable
parts isn't a serial -- particularly an A&I database like Psycinfo
with articles from a plethora of different journals, with
retrospective as well as current issues being added. But there's a
universe of publications that don't fit nicely in one category or
another and we hope that we can collectively come up with a good
solution for cataloging and coding those.
Crystal Graham
Head, Digital Information & Serials Cataloging
University of California, San Diego
crystal_graham@ucsdlibrary.ucsd.edu
Becky Ringler
Computer Files Cataloging Librarian
University of California, San Diego
rringler@ucsd.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
At 06:34 PM 1/8/97 EST, Beth Guay wrote:
I want to catalog ASFA: Aquatic sciences & fisheries
abstracts, an online database available through subscription over
the net as a serial (see http://www.csa.com).It IS a serial.
It's updated monthly and covers 1978 to the present. All of its
corresponding counterpart publications, including print and cdrom
are serials. It oozes seriality. But the darn thing doesn't have
"distinct issues with distinct designations" (see CCM31.1) so I'm
supposed to catalog it as a monograph. There's a nice record in
OCLC that does just what I'd like to do, its #31252852, "MELVYL
PsychINFO database."
I'd like some feedback. Does anyone else have a problem with
treating online databases as monographs?--Thanks, Beth Guay
I have a problem with treating an online database as EITHER a
monograph OR a serial. Like Crystal Graham, who has been trying
to get the world moving on resolving this bibliographic-level
issue, I believe that these things lie somewhere in-between.
However, rather than her working term "bibliographic
hermaphrodites", I would prefer something a little more
library-jargon-like, such as "dynamic entity". A new
bibliographic level would take care of this, I think; with
format integration, all necessary MARC elements are available
in all of the formats, so using the computer file format would
give no restrictions. (from Kevin Randall)
and in a later posting from Kevin ...
I'm wondering if our use of terminology can get us confused. I am troubled
by a distinction between "computer file" and "serial", as if the two are
mutually exclusive. Of course Elizabeth Brown is most likely thinking in
terms of FORMATS, but one could take her suggestion to mean that if you
catalog something as a computer file you can't also consider it a serial.
Actually, I am rather disappointed that the USMARC Format Integration
didn't actually do away with the "serial format"; it seems that a "book"
record with bib level "s" and an 006 field for the serial-specific elements
would be just as meaningful (and more logical, in my mind). But I guess
that would have caused problems for those institutions that keep records
for different formats in different files... (BTW, I have never understood
this division of serials and non-serials in online catalogs; is it merely a
database design matter, or does it have some philosophical basis?)
