[DCRM-L] Citing the new ESTC

[Hillyard, Brian]

I think the only point in recording where or in which edition the cataloguer found the citation is to be able to find the citation to which the cataloguer matched the book-in-hand.  In fact this makes much more sense for something like an incunable where the citation to (e.g.) GW provides more detail than the catalogue record, but in any case for a changing online resource it doesn't work.  The only method that I suggested (as I think did Deborah, whose posting I had missed when sending my first e-mail, sorry) does make sense is giving a date, but then I was doubting that unless all users had access to (e.g.) daily or weekly archiving of the ESTC file, this would achieve anything.  I'm fully in agreement with later comments about browse indexes.
 
Best wishes
 
Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu]On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: 16 October 2006 14:38
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Cc: ElizRob at alum.emory.edu; btil at loc.gov
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Citing the new ESTC



I'm not sure that Brian is recommending that we drop all qualifications. Are you, Brian? I've already written that I don't think a global change in anyone's database from ESTC (RLIN) to ESTC (BL) would be appropriate. My understanding of that qualification in the 510 is that it records where or in which edition the cataloger found the citation, not where or in which edition someone else could find it now. 

 

Of course, we aren't the authors of Standard Citations, and Barbara Tillett is tied up with the JSC meetings which began an hour ago at the Library of Congress. It might be nice, although not necessary, for the DCRM user community to come up with a consensus or majority opinion. Even more important would be for us to hash out the issues, so that when Barbara and Elizabeth Robinson and I discuss this, we have a good handle on the various issues and opinions.

 

I, too, am full of admiration for all the effort that has gone into the final proofreading of DCRM(B). [Append mental picture of me blowing kisses] 

 

Deborah

 

__________________________________________ 
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html
Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003
djleslie at folger.edu || 202.675-0369 || http://www.folger.edu 

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Jane Gillis
Sent: 16 October 2006 08:44
To: DCRM Revision Group List; DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Citing the new ESTC

 

I agree with Brian.  This may not be the last change in how we access the ESTC.  We already have at least 3--RLIN, BL and STAR.  As Deborah wrote, numbers are not static, so we really would need to put the date accessed.  What about all the ESTC (RLIN) citations that are now wrong?  ESTC is much simpler not only for inputting but for searching. 

Jane

At 11:42 AM 10/16/2006 Monday+0100, Hillyard, Brian wrote:



But I don't see that you could do a global change from ESTC (RLIN) to ESTC (BL) [or whatever] because that ignores the principle that the reference is correct only at the time when book and record are compared.

Mirroring the CD-ROM and microfiche citations, the only satisfactory citation would be one giving the date when the book/record comparison was made ....  The advantage of specifying the resource would be as a rough way of indicating how long ago the reference was made.  But are most users going to have the background knowledge?  (If this is the intention, Standard Citation Forms should give dates for BLAISE, RLIN, etc. versions, which it doesn't.)  

Is it worth using anything other than unqualified "ESTC", at least for the online resources?  I don't know what archiving is in place, but I doubt that in most cases it would be possible to establish what the record was at the time.

By the way, if we are prepared to do global changes from ESTC(RLIN) to ESTC(BL), is there any significance in these qualifications?  All we're really doing is telling our users where they can find these.  In that case it would be much better to stick to unqualified "ESTC" and thus avoid misleading users who see records with out-of-date qualifications.

By the way, I'm full of admiration at all the effort that has gone into the final proofing of DCRM(B).

Best wishes

Brian

    

********************************************
Dr Brian Hillyard
Rare Book Collections Manager
National Library of Scotland
George IV Bridge, Edinburgh, EH1 1EW
b.hillyard at nls.uk
Tel: 0131-623 3889 (direct dial)
Tel: 0131-623 3700 (main switchboard)
Fax: 0131-623 3888




*******************************************************************
Visit the National Library of Scotland online at www.nls.uk
*******************************************************************
This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you
are not the intended recipient, please notify the ICT Helpdesk on
+44 131 623 3700 or ict at nls.uk and delete this e-mail.  The
statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Library of
Scotland.  This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 
and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and has been 
scanned by MessageLabs.
*******************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20061016/25d20c85/attachment.htm