[Rda-info-liste] RDA-L Numbering of monographic series
rda-info-liste at lists.dnb.de
rda-info-liste at lists.dnb.de
Don Mai 26 16:22:02 CEST 2016
Lieber Herr Witte,
ich hatte auf der RDA List einen speziellen Fall diskutiert, weil ich
diesen nochmal in der AG RDA besprechen möchte. Deshalb habe ich bemüht,
die angloamerikanische Praxis herauszufinden (was wie immer nicht so
einfach ist). Es handelte es sich also nicht um eine grundsätzliche
Diskussion von Zählungen bei fR. Sie können das gerne verfolgen und auch
gerne mitreden, aber ich verstehe nicht so richtig, wieso Sie einen Teil
davon nun hier auf diese Liste forwarden.
Zu Ihrer konkreten Frage: M.E. ist Ihre Lösung schlüssig, denn die "1"
ist ja wohl eine Heftzählung und muss dann vor der chronologischen
Bezeichnungen stehen, die in Klammern zu setzen ist. Ich bin aber für
diesen Bereich keine Expertin. Vielleicht kann jemand von den
KollegInnen, die jeden Tag mit Zählungen zu tun haben, noch etwas dazu
beitragen.
Ansonsten bitte ich um Verständnis dafür, dass ich nicht die persönliche
Verantwortung für alle RDA-Regeln übernehmen kann ;-)
Viele Grüße
Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Am 26.05.2016 um 11:09 schrieb rda-info-liste at lists.dnb.de:
> Sehr geehrte Frau Wiesenmüller,
> leider verhandeln Sie die Frage Numbering of monographic series in
> Übersee, wo wir doch hier vor Ort mit dem RDA-Berg a la Sisyphos zu
> kämpfen haben (auch wenn hinterher wirklich nur ein Maus herauskommt).
> Vielleicht haben Sie einen Vorschlag wie diese Vorlage nach RDA im
> Katalog aussehen könnte
> LITURGIE UND KULTUR
> 7. Jahrgang 1-2016
> Hier eine Kopie vom Titelblatt
> http://www.ekd.de/liturgische_konferenz/images/Covre_1-2016.jpg
> und Inh.-Verz. mit der Jahrgangs-Angabe
> http://www.ekd.de/liturgische_konferenz/download/Inhaltsverzeichnis_1-2016.pdf
> Hier die Seite auf der diese Links stehen:
> http://www.ekd.de/liturgische_konferenz/publikationen/liturgie_und_kultur.html
> daraus haben wir gebastelt:
> Aufnahme im PICA-Format
> 4170 Liturgie und Kultur$l7. Jahrgang, 1 (2016)
> und im Katalog bekommt der Benutzer zu sehen:
> http://vzopc4.gbv.de:8080/DB=27/XMLPRS=N/PPN?PPN=857220705
> Schriftenreihe: Liturgie und Kultur ; 7. Jahrgang, 1 (2016)
> Oder soll da stehen:
> Schriftenreihe: Liturgie und Kultur ; Jahrgang 7 (2016), 1
> Früher machten wir das so:
> Aus
> LITURGIE UND KULTUR
> 5. Jahrgang 2-2014
> wurde:
> http://vzopc4.gbv.de:8080/DB=27/XMLPRS=N/PPN?PPN=790750341
> Schriftenreihe: Liturgie und Kultur ; 5.2014,2
> Was war daran eigentlich schlechter?
> Mit freundlichen Gruessen
> Gerd Witte
> Ev.-luth. Oberkirchenrat
> Bibliothek
> Philosophenweg 1
> 26121 Oldenburg
> Tel. 0441-7701-145
> Fax 0441-7701-2199
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 25. Mai 2016 um 22:29 Uhr
> *Von:* "Heidrun Wiesenmüller" <wiesenmueller at hdm-stuttgart.de>
> *An:* rda-l at lists.ala.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [RDA-L] Numbering of monographic series
> Kevin,
>
> I must admit that one of the things I worry about is how it looks for
> our users in 490 $v.
>
> Having the publication year in brackets there does seem superfluous at
> best and might be rather confusing. My feeling is that volumes in
> monographic series are really only requested (and quoted) by volume
> number, if they aren't asked for by title and author of the volume in
> question.
>
> Note that in Germany we mostly use a hierarchical description for
> numbered monographic series, i.e. there is a separate record for the
> series as a whole, and the records for the individual volumes are
> linked to this. I'm aware that the collocating process is managed
> differently in Angloamerican catalogs.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
> On 25.05.2016 Kevin M Randall wrote:
>
> Is it a chronological designation? As with most things regarding
> to serials, it seems, the answer is usually "it depends". It
> depends on what you mean by chronological designation, and it also
> depends on what the publisher's intent is (if the publisher is
> even conscious of what they're doing to begin with—I wouldn't
> argue that they always are...)
>
> A date appearing in close proximity with the numbering would
> typically be considered part of the numbering as defined in RDA.
> It would then be a "chronological designation" in the sense of it
> being a date designation. But chronological designation may not
> always have anything to do with date/coverage of the content. It
> may simply be the date of the issue. There may in fact be two
> different date designations for an issue, *in addition to* the
> publication date: the issuing date, and the coverage date. I've
> several times seen publications that have an issue with a
> publication or copyright date of (for example) 2012, with an issue
> date of 2011, and coverage of 2009-2010.
>
> I'm not sure I'd worry all that much about it, and err on the side
> of including the date instead of omitting it. Dates appearing
> very prominently—either close to the actual numbering on a source
> that might also typically contain publication date, or perhaps by
> itself on a source that typically wouldn't contain publication
> date—should probably be considered "chronological designation".
>
> Kevin M. Randall
>
> Principal Serials Cataloger
>
> Northwestern University Libraries
>
> Northwestern University
>
> www.library.northwestern.edu
>
> kmr at northwestern.edu
>
> 847.491.2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>
> *From:*rda-l-request at lists.ala.org
> [mailto:rda-l-request at lists.ala.org] *On Behalf Of *Heidrun
> Wiesenmüller
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2016 2:25 PM
> *To:* rda-l at lists.ala.org
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Numbering of monographic series
>
> Thanks, Stephen and John, for your answers.
> I got a third anser off-list (by a serials cataloger who prefers
> reasoning B), so practices seem to vary a bit.
>
> Thanks for pointing me to the LC-PCC PS for 24.6.1.3, I had been
> looking in the wrong place, in chapter 2. Only I don't find it all
> that much helpful. The last bit, which John quoted, seems to say
> that chronology should be recorded in addition to the alphanumeric
> designation, but only if it really is a chronological designation
> and not a date of publication ("Be certain not to confuse a
> chronological designation with a publishing date.").
>
> This brings me right back to the point where I started - with the
> question whether the date really is *meant* as a chronological
> designation. John thinks it is, because of the proximity to the
> volume number, but I'm still not quite convinced. It would be nice
> having some examples here.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
> On 24.05.2016 John Hostage wrote:
>
> As a serials cataloger, I lean toward reasoning A. J
>
> It’s always a judgment call as to whether a date constitutes a
> chronological designation for the series, but when it appears
> close to the series and not in the imprint area, that tips it.
> PCC practice is to record the date with the numbering in the
> series statement as well as in the access point (for newly
> established series). LC-PCC PS for 24.6.1.3 says “For SARs
> being established for the first time under RDA, include both
> the numbering and chronology in the 642 [of the authority
> record]. Be certain not to confuse a chronological designation
> with a publishing date.”
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> John Hostage
>
> Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
>
> Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
>
> Langdell Hall 194
>
> Harvard Law School Library
>
> Cambridge, MA 02138
>
> hostage at law.harvard.edu
>
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
>
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
> ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
>
> *From:*rda-l-request at lists.ala.org
> [mailto:rda-l-request at lists.ala.org] *On Behalf Of *Heidrun
> Wiesenmüller
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 11:17
> *To:* rda-l at lists.ala.org
> *Subject:* [RDA-L] Numbering of monographic series
>
> For volumes in a monographic series, the numbering usually
> consists only of an alphanumeric designation, e.g. "Volume 6"
> or, in German, "Band 12". However, it sometimes happens (at
> least in German publications) that the year of publication of
> the volume is given on the series title page as well, usually
> directly after or below the alphanumeric designation.
>
> For example, here is the series information of two volumes in
> the same monographic series ("Technical mechanics series"),
> given at the head of the t.p.:
>
> Example 1:
> Schriftenreihe Technische Mechanik
> Band 16 - 2015
>
> Example 2:
> Schriftenreihe Technische Mechanik
> Band 17 - 2015
>
> The year 2015 is also given in the imprint area of the two books.
>
> Now my question is whether we should record the numbering of
> these volumes in RDA 2.12.9 as "Band 16 (2015)" and "Band 17
> (2015)" respectively, or simply as "Band 16" and "Band 17".
>
> I think there can be two ways of reasoning:
>
> Reasoning A:
> The year is given close to the alphanumeric designation on the
> source of information, and the presentation doesn't look any
> different from statements which are typical for journals like
> "Volume 3, issue 1 January 2015", "Volume 3, issue 2 March
> 2015", etc. Therefore, "2015" should be seen as a
> chronological designation and recorded in brackets after the
> alphanumeric designation, i.e., "Band 16 (2015)" etc.
>
> Reasoning B:
> Although the year is given close to the alphanumeric
> designation, it is nonetheless only meant as the date of
> publication and not as a chronological designation. A
> chronological designation is defined in RDA as "numbering
> (...) presented in the form of a date" (RDA 2.6.3.1.). That
> means that one should be able to infer the sequence of volumes
> from the chronological designation alone, e.g. "January 2015"
> comes before "March 2015". But it would not be possible to
> infer the sequence of volumes in the case of the monographic
> series, as the same year is given for both volumes.
>
> Personally, I lean very strongly towards reasoning B, because
> I think that - apart from the case of yearbooks, where the
> individual volumes are really defined as being the volume *for
> a certain year* - the year of publication can never fulfill
> the function of numbering for a monographic series to any
> degree of certainty. Even if we had a series where up to now
> there has never been more than one volume published per year,
> this could easily change in the very next year (because it is
> characteristic for a monographic series that it doesn't have
> regular frequency).
>
> I think that, from the publisher's point of view, after or
> below the volume number is just a possible position on the
> resource where a date of publication can be given (similar to
> giving it close to the edition statement, as we sometimes find
> it). So I don't feel that this information is really "meant"
> as part of the numbering. I also think that repeating the year
> of publication in the series statement wouldn't be helpful for
> our users.
>
> I've discussed this and similar cases with several German
> colleagues and find that, interestingly, serials catalogers
> tend to prefer reasoning A, while catalogers who do mostly
> monographs tend to prefer reasoning B.
>
> How would you treat this case?
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------
>
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>
> Stuttgart Media University
>
> Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
>
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi <http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
>
>
>
> You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the RDA-L discussion list.
>
> You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method that you receive RDA-L posts, and other settings by logging into your subscription athttp://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l.
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email tosympa at lists.ala.org with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L in the subject line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is received you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------
>
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>
> Stuttgart Media University
>
> Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
>
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi <http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
>
> You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the RDA-L discussion list.
> You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method that you receive RDA-L posts, and other settings by logging into your subscription athttp://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l.
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email tosympa at lists.ala.org with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L in the subject line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is received you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
> You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the
> RDA-L discussion list. You can change the email associated with your
> subscription, the method that you receive RDA-L posts, and other
> settings by logging into your subscription at
> http://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l. To unsubscribe from this list, send
> an email to sympa at lists.ala.org with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L in the subject
> line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is received
> you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be
> unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rda-info-liste mailing list
> Rda-info-liste at lists.dnb.de
> http://lists.dnb.de/mailman/listinfo/rda-info-liste
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Nobelstr. 10, 70569 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/8923-3188
Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: http://lists.dnb.de/pipermail/rda-info-liste/attachments/20160526/f66ac64c/attachment-0001.html