Karen Coyle wrote:
> There's work being done to add the records to library catalogs as well
> as to add them to worldCat. There are issues, of course, not the least
> of which is that the cataloging rules require that the digitized copy be
> given a separate record -- resulting in adding duplicate records into
> the library catalog for every digitized book. Michigan has bravely
> ignored this rule, and is adding the link to the digitized book onto the
> record for the hard copy.
I haven't spoken up against FRBR on this list yet, and for me, many parts are just too theoretical without enough concern for reality. For example, do we really think it's in the user's interest to make a separate record for each format? What if there are formats in txt, pdf, djvu, jpeg, gif, who knows what else? Making separate records for each of these would be a lot of work, and be more or less incomprehensible to the user.
Here is one of my favorite examples: Thomas a 'Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kempis/imitation.html
There are a ton of different formats. Do these get one record or a lot? What if this web page didn't exist and these were just separate files around the web? Last I checked, there were different expressions hidden in there, too. What is the best sort of record for the users, and for librarians who need to manage these things?
I've thought about this page, how it should be done to the best advantage for everyone concerned, and that is sustainable in the long-run. I've mentioned this page on listservs, and have never gotten an answer. But these are the sorts of real-life problems that people will be expected to solve. I can certainly understand just putting in a link as they do at Michigan. I've seen it done at LC a lot.
Most places consider a photocopy to be a "copy" of an item. This could be seen in an analogous way, therefore, these are all copies. ????
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Thu Sep 06 2007 - 09:24:07 EDT