Pete:
I think the purposes of bibliographic citation and the kinds of phone
call information used to support authority decisions are quite
different, and trying to smoosh them together is a risky business.
The MARC documentation says this about 670 notes:
/Citation for a consulted source in which information is found about
the 1XX heading in an established heading record, an established
heading and subdivision record, a subdivision record or a reference
record. May also include the information found in the source. /
/Each source citation is contained in a separate 670 field./
/Citation for a consulted source that yielded no information about
the heading is contained in field 675 (Source Data Not Found). /
/Citations and information in this field are often not written in a
form adequate for public user display./
I think it's pretty clear that the information in a 670 is
administrative in nature, not intended to support the same functionality
that a bibliographic citation is intended for. This strikes me very
strongly as a trip into the bushes, and the question of whether the
information is retained as audio, transcribed, or in email form is
beside the point.
Diane
Pete Johnston wrote:
> I should really refer to the original discussion in context. See
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group/browse_thread/thread/cda288a029264c4e
>
> which I think should be visible even if you aren't logged in (or a
> member of that group).
>
> Pete
> ---
> Pete Johnston
> Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
> Web: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/people/petejohnston/
> Weblog: http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Tel: +44 (0)1225 474323
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata
>> Initiative's Usage Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Pete Johnston
>> Sent: 05 June 2008 14:08
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Bibliographic resources and events (FW: minor problem)
>>
>> Hmm, I was convinced, but I'm now getting some arguments against this.
>>
>> What about the case of phone calls? See e.g.
>>
>> http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/naco0202.htm
>>
>> I guess there may be a transcription of the call, but it does
>> seem to be the case that it is the actual phonecall which is
>> being cited in those examples.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>
>
|