[DCRM-L] Citing the new ESTC

Mon Oct 16 17:43:56 MDT 2006

But I repeat, what is the point of having thousands of citations in our
catalog to a non-existent database/bibliography? The only way the ESTC
(RLIN) citations will be useful to any user in the future is if they go
look them up in the BL database. So why not just point them there
directly? Or just use ESTC?

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 

________________________________

	From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
	Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:38 AM
	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

	-----Original Message-----
	From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [
mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu <mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>
]On
	Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
	Sent: 13 October 2006 23:48
	To: DCRM Revision Group List
	Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Citing the new ESTC

	ESTC (BL) makes sense to me. 

	I do understand why the delivery system is being specified, but
at the
	same time I wonder how important it really is. Will the
numbering system
	differ between the systems? I assume not. Do we want our
catalogs to
	have both "ESTC (RLIN)" and "ESTC (BL)" in them? Particularly
since one
	is a replacement for the other, which is permanently going away?
Just
	thinking to myself. When the time comes we'll probably globally
change
	all our ESTC (RLIN) references to ESTC (BL) (or whatever folks
agree on
	is the new standard citation).

	Bob

	Robert L. Maxwell
	Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
	Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
	6728 Harold B. Lee Library
	Brigham Young University
	Provo, UT 84602
	(801)422-5568  

	>-----Original Message-----
	>From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu 
	>[ mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> ] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
	>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:25 PM
	>To: DCRM Revision Group List
	>Subject: [DCRM-L] Citing the new ESTC
	>
	>Dear colleagues,
	>
	>As you all know, the public ESTC is moving in a couple of 
	>weeks to a freely-available web site on the British Library
server. 
	>
	>Since the ESTC exists in a number of different forms and 
	>delivery systems, the principles for formulating standard 
	>citations requires that the delivery system also be specified. 
	>When making 510's for the ESTC, I propose we cite it as ESTC 
	>(BL), unless anyone has a better idea.
	>
	>There is also another question, which is, for those of us with 
	>access to the master STAR database, how do we cite that? 
	>(Juliet, are you listening?) 
	>______________________________________________________
	>Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
	>Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
	>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 
	>
	>
	>

*******************************************************************
	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.

*******************************************************************

	Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger|  Sterling Memorial Library
	Yale University | New Haven CT  06520
	(203)432-2633 (voice) | (203)432-4047 (fax) |
jane.gillis at yale.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20061016/c377b891/attachment.htm 