Brad Collins wrote:

Since the place of publication is important for determining copyright restrictions in some cases, I think it would be better to include a place of publication.

This has bothered me for some time. I've always wondered how to handle virtual organizations which don't really have a place of publication in the conventional sense like PG or the Apache Group.

I think the ISBD recommends using "s.l." where the place is unknown or indeterminate. (Initials for "sine loco". See http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/pubs/isbd3.htm#18 section 4.1.15) However, this does not help the copyright question. MARC does provide the 506 field ("Restrictions on Access note") for copyright notices etc. Right now, I'm just putting "Freely available" in here (or the copyright statement for copyrighted works). But we could use a more detailed statement here. E.g. we should as a minimum say "Freely available in the USA. May be subject to copyright in other locations." We could also place the license url in this field (subfield u) rather than the 856. Regarding the series statement -- I'm not wedded to the use of 830 for "Project Gutenberg". It just seemed an appropriate way to include the PG number. One typical use of 830 in library catalogues is to be able to index works by series name. So this would allow (in this case) for a search on series name "Project Gutenberg" to list all the works in the collection. However, with currently almost 14,000 titles, maybe this isn't a worthwhile goal. "Project Gutenberg" should also be available as keywords in any library catalog search, if one needed to limit a search to just PG works. We could always expand the 500 General Note to include more detail about PG, including the item number. (500 can be whatever we want, and you can have as many 500 notes as you need.) Also, the item number is present in field 001 -- although that probably won't be visible to the general user of a library catalog, so including it in the 500 note is useful (and again makes the number usable in a keyword search). So if you want to reserve the 830 for particular series within PG (e.g. EET) then that's fine with me. Steve -- Stephen Thomas, Senior Systems Analyst, Adelaide University Library ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY SA 5005 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 8 8303 5190 Fax: +61 8 8303 4369 Email: stephen.thomas@adelaide.edu.au URL: http://staff.library.adelaide.edu.au/~sthomas/

My last post in reply to Greg included a chunk of rather raw notes I took on the subject yesterday. I might as well send along the rest of the notes which are all exploring issues with the nitty gritty details of manifestation entity records for PG texts. You can ignore the BMF stuff. Take this all as food for thought rather than specific suggestions for PG. ** Series ,----[ ISBD(ER) 6.6.1 ] | 6.6.1 The numbering of the item within a series or sub-series is | given in the terms in which it appears in the item. Standard | abbreviations may be used. Arabic numerals are substituted for other | numerals or spelled-out numbers. e.g. | | - (Multimedia learning series ; vol. 2) | - (Visit Canada series ; vol. C) | - (Computer simulation games ; module 5) | - (BTS research report ; 2) `---- Steve's script give's us: 830 0|aProject Gutenberg|v9737 But the ISBD suggests something like this: (Project Gutenberg etext ; no. 8654) 830 0|a(Project Gutenberg etext ; |vno. 9737 or BMF: series : ($a[Project Gutenberg etext] ; no. $vol[9737]) ** Material Designation ,----[ ISBD(ER) Appendix C ] | **General material designation:** | Electronic resource | | **Resource designations with "electronic" in the designations:** | Electronic data | Electronic font data | Electronic image data | Electronic numeric data | Electronic census data | Electronic survey data | Electronic representational data | Electronic map data | Electronic sound data | Electronic text data | Electronic bibliographic database(s) | Electronic document(s) (e.g. letters, articles) Electronic journal(s) | Electronic newsletter(s) `---- For PG, this would then suggest changing the more general Electronic Resource to more specific: Electronic document Electronic sound data The reason I am suggesting this is that all of the examples I have seen using `Electronic resourece' are for things like interactive CDROMS, and dynamic Web sites. These are not specifically electronic texts, documents or sound recordings. The distinction is small and certainly the general `Electronic Resource' works, but I wanted to find out if there were more specific enumerated values for material designation.... ** Mode of Access Since we haven't gotten around to working on Instance/Item entities yet, this is a bit premature. Access fields are not used in Manifestation entities. But reading through the ISBD and MARC specs got me thinking about the issue. I must say that I don't like the ISBD(ER) mode of access field. Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web. URL: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/callaloo/. This is needlessly verbose and redundent. Another example in the spec is a bit better. Mode of access: Internet. URL: http://mitpress.mit.edu/CityofBits/. But it's not much better. ,----[ ISBD(ER) 7.5.2 Notes relating to mode of access] | | Mode of access shall be recorded in a note for all remote access | electronic resources. | | Mode of access is given as the second note following the System | requirements note (see 7.5.1), if given, and is preceded by "Mode of | access" (or its equivalent in another language and/or script). In | the absence of a system requirements note, mode of access is given | as the first note. e.g. | | - Mode of access: Lexis system. Requires subscription to | Mead Data Central, Inc. | - Mode of access: World Wide Web. URL: http://www.un.org | - Mode of access: Internet via ftp://ftp.nevada.edu | - Mode of access: Gopher://gopher.peabody.yale.edu | - Mode of access: Computer university network | - Mode of access: Mikenet `---- On the whole, MARC and ISBD are a bit clumsy when it comes to networked resources--the records are basically electronic catalog cards. Numbers 2,3 and 4 are all network addresses, which have a URL pointing to the resource. I can understand putting a label indicating the type of network protocol but the examples are all screwed up mixing descriptive labels for the protocol with the type of network. Better would be something like the following: - access: Lexis [dialup network]: Note: Requires subscription to Mead Data Central, Inc. - access: Project Gutenberg (WWW site): URL: http://projectgutenberg.org - access: Project Gutenberg (FTP mirror): URL: ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org - access: Internet (FTP site): URL: ftp://ftp.nevada.edu - access: Internet (Gopher site): URL: gopher://gopher.peabody.yale.edu - access: UCLA (university intranet): URL: http://libary.ucla.edu:2080 Note: Requires university network account. - access: Mikenet (private local area network) in BMF access: - $a[$typ:dialup $l:Lexis (dialup network)]: Note: $not[Requires subscription to Mead Data Central, Inc.] - $a[$typ:www $l:Project Gutenberg (WWW site): URL: $url[http://projectgutenberg.org] - $a[$typ:ftp $l:Project Gutenberg (FTP mirror)]: URL: $url[ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org] - $a[$typ:ftp $l:Internet (FTP site)]: URL: $url[ftp://ftp.nevada.edu] - $a[$typ:gopher $l:Internet (Gopher site)]: URL: $url[gopher://gopher.peabody.yale.edu] - $a[$typ:intranet $l:UCLA (university intranet)]: URL: $url[http://libary.ucla.edu:2080] Note: Requires university network account. - $a[$typ:lan $l:Mikenet] ($not[private local area network]) Now what about MARC? Steve's script produces: 856 40|uhttp://www.gutenberg.org/etext/9737 856 42|uhttp://www.gutenberg.org/license|3Rights and the spec sez... ,----[ MARC: 856 Electronic Location and Access ] | Field 856 contains the information needed to locate and access an | electronic resource. The field may be used in a bibliographic record | for a resource when that resource or a subset of it is available | electronically. In addition, it may be used to locate and access an | electronic version of a non-electronic resource described in the | bibliographic record or a related electronic resource. `---- This breaks down to: *** Indicators First: 4 HTTP Second: 0 Resource 2 Related Resource *** Subfields $u URI (do they make a distinction between URI and URL?) $3 Materials specified. -- Brad Collins <brad@chenla.org>, Bangkok, Thailand

Andrew Sly <sly@victoria.tc.ca> writes:

I question if the use of a series number as suggested below is an ideal approach.

I believe it is intended for a smaller number of items which are intentionally published as a series.

I'd suggest that the closest thing to PG etexts numbers in a traditional research library, would be accession numbers (as commonly used for microforms)

I used Series because The Early English Text Society publications are cataloged as a series and this was the closest thing I have found to the PG etext numbers. This is from the LOC: Series: Early English Text Society (Series). Original series ; 10, [etc.] 830 _0 |a Early English Text Society (Series). |p Original series ; |v 10, [etc.] I understand that the PG etext numbers are not a concious planned series but I still think it works.... b/ -- Brad Collins <brad@chenla.org>, Bangkok, Thailand

Juliet Sutherland <vze3rknp@verizon.net> writes:

This is far from my area of expertise, but I do know that we are putting books into PG that come from several types of what I think of as "series". One kind is a group of books by one author (eg The Bobbsey Twins Series) and the other kind is a group of books, each by different authors, that are intended to go together (eg the English Men of Letters biographies). I'd think that we would want to have a way to represent each of these in the PG catalog.

And you are correct -- and this is why MARC has a number of different ways of dealing with the issue (and I am not the person to explain them) but as far as I can see they are not mutually exclusive. Fields can be repeated (MARC 830 is repeatable) and there is no reason why there aren't series within series. If there is a better way to do this? Was the LOC example I used wrong? b/ -- Brad Collins <brad@chenla.org>, Bangkok, Thailand