770 supplement/special issue entry

[CECSpecialistI]

https://github.com/uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA/blob/main/Working%20Documents/7XX.csv

[pennylenger]

RDA says ISSN is at work level. Identifier for work. (LC/PCC practice: Apply the option. Use ISSN Portal as vocabulary encoding scheme. See the Metadata Guidance documentation: Works)

Why is it not manifestation? not an identifier for manifestation? This guidance makes it look like a manifestation level. (LC/PCC practice: Apply the option. Record what is found on the manifestation in hand, even if not confirmed by the vocabulary encoding scheme (i.e., the ISSN Portal). Use judgment in deciding if it is a valid ISSN.) @CECSpecialistI @GordonDunsire @lake44me

[GordonDunsire]

@pennylenger: For a basic explanation of the treatment of ISSNs, see page 4 of Issues on IFLA-LRM alignment for serials and other continuing resources.

Policy statements must be interpreted in the context of the associated RDA option:

"Use ISSN Portal as vocabulary encoding scheme" is associated with the option that begins "Use a vocabulary encoding scheme as a source of information". Of course, the ISSN Portal is the only official dataset or other vocabulary encoding scheme for ISSNs, but RDA makes no assumptions about the use of unofficial datasets or a (future) change in the ISSN infrastructure, such as the integration of ISSN-L and the proposed ISSN for work groups (ISSN-X; I can't remember the actual code).

"Record what is found on the manifestation in hand, even if not confirmed by the vocabulary encoding scheme" is associated with the option "Use any source of information". "Use judgment in deciding if it is a valid ISSN" refers to a couple of situations:

1. The ISSN has not yet appeared in the ISSN Portal. There can be signficant delay between assigning an ISSN, then printing it on the manifestations of issues of the serial, and creating a Portal record.

2. As with ISBNs (which are identifiers for manifestation), publishers often add the ISSNs for all serials in the "family". For example, the ISSN for an online version can be found printed on the manifestations of issues of the print version, microfiche version, etc. The WEM-lock (see RDA paper above) means that these are all distinct serial works. A user does not want to retrieve the print version when they are looking for the online version, etc. so when recording the actual ISSN for the serial work, the cataloguer must choose the correct one.

[I think it would be helpful if the PCC policy clarified this.]

3. As usual, judgment must be exercised when interpreting what a manifestation says about itself, and what is "true"; manifestation statements may be incomplete or contradictory, and may contain accidental or deliberate errors.

   [Serials cataloguing is very different post-3R, but most practice, documentation, training, etc. has not yet changed. The policy statements are really taking the lead, and I know a lot of effort has gone into balancing conformance with RDA, the impact of legacy data and systems, and operational cataloguing.]

[pennylenger]

@GordonDunsire I appreciate your thorough explanation. Thank you. I get another question. For 770 - Supplement/Special Issue Entry (R) Full, these are notes on entities related to what is being described by the main MARC record. Is it a good idea to map 770 in this way: [Work] has note on work: “Supplement/Special Issue: [$a value]. Edition: [$b value] ($c value). Imprint: [$d value]. Related parts: [$g value] …etc. Or is there any other suggested approach that I can take to deal with 770. And 772, 773, 774, 775 all have almost the same subfields. I would like to hear your opinions on mapping these linking entries. @CECSpecialistI @corialanus @lake44me Thank you all.

[CECSpecialistI]

We need to map these and other 76x-78x fields out more fully. Need lots of examples and a related discussion page. @CECSpecialistI make a page and get some examples together this week