Svensk Biblioteksförenings kommitté för katalogisering (The Swedish Library Association, Cataloguing Committee)

Gunilla Jonsson
Chair of the Cataloguing Committee
2002-11-14

Reply to: Treatment of publications in multiple formats. Proposals initiated by the IFLA Section on Cataloguing’s ISBD Review Group

The area of electronic publishing is in rapid change and development, and we must be prepared to review our decision on a continuous basis. It is understandable that the ISBD review group wishes to leave the question of one or more records for different presentations formats for electronic online publications as open as possible and leave the decision to the libraries within different library communities. However, cataloguers today use records from bibliographic databases from all over the world, so, actually, the common agreement ought to be global. In order to facilitate record exchange and the reuse of bibliographic information, it would definitely be an advantage if ISBD(M) could issue a more distinct recommendation than the one suggested.

It is hardly controversial to treat different online presentation formats for the same manifestation in the same record, and it is in accordance with the rules in AACR2 (9.2B4). If the same manifestation is used to produce a paper manifestation, the situation may become more complicated. In such cases the dissemination, or the dissemination technique, could provide a criterion. We suggest that paper manifestations produced for dissemination on a market get separate records. They do not constitute different editions than the manifestation which is offered online, but they definitely constitute another issue. The same should go for print on demand issues (with print on demand we understand printing from electronic storage but for a commercial, albeit limited, market).

Different kinds of e-printing, that is the procedure when single items can be ordered via a web template by an individual person, on the other hand, should not get separate records. They should be treated in the same way as different online presentation formats for the manifestation in question. If this kind of paper manifestations are integrated in library collections, they should, just as local printouts, be dealt with in the holdings information. The reason is that this kind of ”readers’ manifestation”, as they could be labeled, not can be considered disseminated to the general public in the same way as trade publishing. Just like HTML and PDF formats which are offered as online alternatives, they should be considered as an alternative presentation format for individual use.

We are aware that the demarcation between print on demand and e-printing may be blurred, indeed, at least for grey material. We think the over all aim, however, must be to have records for manifestations which are in general circulation, and not to confuse the situation too much with separate records for that which is not.

Pdf-illustration