Proposal: Change in mode of issuance for online resources: proposal for a revised instruction

6JSC/ISSN/5
August 4, 2014

Change in mode of issuance for online resources: proposal for a revised instruction

ISSN International Centre (ISSN)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Proposal: Change in mode of issuance for online resources: proposal for a revised instruction

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    This proposal suggests text only for 1.6.2.1, to address when an online serial changes to an online integrating resource.

    It does not suggest text for integrating resources that change to serials, although the background information indicates that this situation is also possible. I assume similar text would be needed in 1.6.3.1, if we support this proposal.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    If we support this proposal, I wonder what the impact is on 2.13, Mode of Issuance. To date, RDA has not supported a mix of values here; there’s no value in the table for “mixed” (or its equivalent), and there’s no instruction to record all values that are applicable.

    Thus, I’m currently reading this proposal as a significant change to the underlying structure of RDA — and one that I think has far-reaching implications. Would anyone like to correct me on this?

    • Lori Robare says:

      Comment from Regina Reynolds, Director, U.S. ISSN Center:
      I would like to comment about the concern expressed about the mixed mode of access and thus a fundamental change to RDA. The intent is not to describe anything “mixed” but rather to describe the current state of the resource only. Notes can be made about its previous mode of issuance, which does not exist anymore.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    A few language notes about this proposal: RDA has not used “re-describe” before. However, there are 30 instructions that use “in case of doubt” and 20 that use the term “consider”. Would it be possible to recast this proposal to use these more common RDA terms instead?

    Instead of the “Do not create” sentence, I think this needs to be reworked into an “if/then” (or “if/and/then”) instruction.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      For example the 2nd sentence in the proposal could be changed to something like:

      If an online serial changes its mode of issuance to an online integrating resource, then change the description to reflect the current iteration.

      [Have I captured the basic intent of the original sentence in the proposal? If the “note” instruction is needed, I think that needs to be incorporated in 2.17 — perhaps as a new instruction for note on changes in mode of issuance??]

      • Kathy Glennan says:

        The possible change to the 1st paragraph in 1.6.3.1 would need to be something like the following (italics indicate new text):

        Create a new description if an integrating resource changes to a multipart monograph or a print serial (see 2.13). If an online integrating resource changes its mode of issuance to an online serial, then change the description to reflect the first/earliest issue of the serial.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    I do not think that 1.6 is the right place to indicate that notes should be made. That kind of instruction belongs in Chapter 2 — or maybe even Chapter 3 in this case.

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    How much of these proposed changes need to be in RDA itself, and how much would be better in an application profile type of solution? I suspect that the international nature of the ISSN Centre argues for the changes to RDA proper….

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    In some ways, it seems like the ISSN Centre would like us to assess the changes in mode of issuance between online serials & online integrating resources (or vice versa) in a similar fashion as we determine major/minor changes in the title proper of serials (2.3.2.13).

    Is this a reasonable analogy? If so, this brings me back to my 2nd comment above — this would be a significant change.

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    I’m concerned that the exception (2nd paragraph of proposed text) only applies to major title changes (1.6.2.3). I would assume we’d want/expect a new description if an online resource changed from serial to integrating resource & also had a change in responsibility or edition statement (1.6.2.4 & 1.6.2.5).

  8. Lori Robare says:

    Comment from Ed Jones, National University:
    I’m puzzled by the second paragraph. Are there known cases where an online integrating resource has changed to an online serial? It seems a bit atavistic.

  9. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I think I agree with Kathy’s comments so far. My comment is: I realize there are no doubt real world problems this is meant to address, but the proposal takes a simply worded and easy to understand instruction and turns it into one that is complex and wordy and one you have to sit there and think carefully about to make sure you understand. I’m fine with the idea that we don’t create new descriptions when an online serial turns into an integrating resource and vice versa (I think that’s the main point?), but there must be a simpler way of expressing this. How about:

    1.6.2.1. Exception
    Do not create a new description if an online serial changes to an online integrating resource.

    1.6.3.1. Exception
    Do not create a new description if an online integrating resource changes to an online serial.

    Bob, SAC

    • Dominique Bourassa says:

      I agree with Bob’s comments. I found the wording of this proposal difficult to understand in its current state. I read this proposal more than once and each time I felt it was a chance I knew what they were trying to say, otherwise I don’t think I would get it. Bob’s suggestions seem so much easier to understand.

  10. Tina Shrader says:

    I also agree with Bob’s comment about the complexity of the wording, and like his proposed verbiage.

    Some of my colleagues have questioned whether a similar practice would be useful when things change from a serial to a multipart monograph and vice-versa (e.g. in the case of an analyzable serial that drops its numbering and becomes an unnumbered monographic series.)

  11. Steve Kelley says:

    I like Bob’s simplified approach. I agree with the sentiment of the proposal, even if there are problems with what instructions need to be revised. It strikes me as going back to latest entry cataloging in some ways. Or, like treating the change from serial to integrating resource as a minor change.

  12. Adolfo Tarango says:

    I’ve very mixed feelings about this proposal. There are the issues raised by others, the most important to me being the increased complexity this adds. This is not just in adding complexity to the rules, but for training in serials and integrating resources cataloging. This training is difficult enough, adding additional exceptions and contingencies would only add to that difficulty. And while I greatly sympathize with the ISSN Centre’s compliant that publishers often do not recognize the need for applying for new ISSNs with a change in issuance, this is hardly a new situation. In my many years as a serials cataloger, one of the biggest and consistent complaints I’ve heard is that publishers don’t ask for new ISSNs even with the most obvious of major changes. Similarly, users have had to deal with seemingly unnecessary major changes, probably since the day catalogers first starting cataloging serials, e.g. Atlantic –> Atlantic Monthly –> Atlantic. I’m all for not compounding the problem but I’m not convinced this approach doesn’t cause more problems than it solves. I’m curious to know if the ISSN Centre has data on just how often it has happened where a resource went from serial to integrating resource and back to serial. Also, it’s not clear to me how catalogers would handle a situation where the earlier issues of a resource remain distinctly separated from and only later issues constitute the integrating resource. Lastly, there is the assumption that a mode of issuance change would happen uniformly across all providers, but that wouldn’t necessarily be the case. In an environment where catalogers only have access to the version of the resource they have locally licensed, would this create editing wars between catalogers at institutions licensing the resource in different modes of issuance?

Leave a Reply