April 11, 2005
Source of Title note for Internet resources
The OLAC Cataloging Policy Committe convened a subcommittee to recommend best practices for the required source of title note for Internet resources. The committee has just publicized their second draft, and they are seeking comments.
To see the full text of the subcommittee's announcement of the draft (including some of the rationale behind their recommendations), click below.
CALL FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON NEW DRAFT
The OLAC CAPC Subcommittee on the Source of Title Note for Internet Resources has completed a second draft of the revised document that is ready for review and comment. The draft is temporarily available at: http://www.uwm.edu/People/mll/stnir-2.html. We would very much appreciate feedback on the current draft by May 2.
For those who reviewed the previous draft, please note that Sections 3 and 4 have been heavily revised, with the most significant changes given in red font. Section 3 is taking a quite new and different approach to the source of title note compared to what has been taken in the past. The subcommittee kept running into roadblocks in trying to reconcile different uses of common terms in existing catalog records and in AACR2, LCRI, and PCC examples. One conflict, for example, was whether "caption" or "Web page" or "home page" should be used for a title displayed prominently towards the top of a Web page or home page. It
eventually became obvious that these terms are not really synonymous. One refers to a type of page and the other to a place on the page. This took us back to one of the principles of the existing, version 1, document in making a distinction between "the page and the place on the page" when thinking about the source of title. We judged that citing a single source for Web resources did not in most cases resolve ambiguity and that citing a double source would be much less ambiguous and also provide a consistent format that could be used for all types of Internet resources and title situations. Even though this format is a bit more
wordy, we decided to recommend this as a way to resolve a host of problems.
We want to remind folks that this document is intended to serve as a best practice guide developed by a community of electronic and audiovisual catalogers. Like most best practice guides, it has been developed because existing resources have not fully addressed the needs of working catalogers. It therefore goes beyond the examples given AACR2, LCRIs, etc., which are not consistent with one another, to recommend a form of the note that we think better serves the intent of the note and its value for catalogers of remote access electronic resources. Like any best practice guide, catalogers and institutions
will be free to follow this or not, as they choose.
The comments we received on our first draft confirmed that many catalogers find a need for further guidance for the wording of this note. In some ways it seems that the exact wording of this note is not relatively all that important for catalogers to be spending much time and effort on. But this may be exactly why this guide is useful. For those who choose to follow it, it offers a list of terms, definitions, and recommendations for a consistent format that catalogers can use
quickly and then move on to more important aspects of their cataloging. Please send any comments by May 2 to Steve Miller at email@example.com.
Greta de Groat, Stanford University
Susan Leister, Rice University
Steven Miller, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
so informative, thanks to tell us.
Posted by: Meaffrautle at September 29, 2010 8:05 PM