AUTOCAT: approval required (26D2AF)

[L-Soft list server at University at Buffalo (1.8c)]

This message was originally submitted by jm...@UNM.EDU to the AUTOCAT list at
LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU. You can approve it using the "OK" mechanism, ignore
it, or repost an edited copy. The message will expire automatically and you do
not need to do anything if you just want to discard it. Please refer to the
list owner's guide if you are not familiar with the "OK" mechanism; these
instructions are being kept purposefully short for your convenience in
processing large numbers of messages.

------------------ Original message (ID=26D2AF) (123 lines) -------------------
Received: (qmail 24799 invoked from network); 27 Feb 1998 17:45:58 -0000
Received: from lyra.unm.edu (129.24.8.9)
by listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 27 Feb 1998 17:45:58 -0000
Received: from musca.unm.edu([129.24.57.2]) (5246 bytes) by lyra.unm.edu
via sendmail with P:smtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp
(sender: <jm...@unm.edu>)
id <m0y8Tr9...@lyra.unm.edu>
for <AUT...@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:45:55 -0700
(MST)
(Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #6 built 1998-Jan-5)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:45:55 -0700 (MST)
From: john g marr <jm...@unm.edu>
To: Michael Borries <MS...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
cc:
"AUTOCAT: Library cataloging and authorities discussion group"
<AUT...@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
Subject: Re: format and form subdivisions
In-Reply-To: <m0y8Rgs...@crux.unm.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.96.980227...@musca.unm.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Michael:
Sorry -- no denigration of video tapes intended: I was only
noting the difference between a CONTINUING publication and a publication
with a single manifestation (monographic, so to speak, whether book,
video, etc.). A video tape serial title (ongoing, like one issued every
month, with out a definite end-of-issuance data) would also be referred to
as a periodical. Since we do not shelve video tapes in the same location
in the library as books, paper serials, etc., the location code is a dead
give-away as to the physical nature of the various titles (as is the
"medium" code, $h in the title field of the cat. record, if the patron
looks that far ...)

John G. Marr
Zimmerman Libr., Catalog Dept.
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jm...@unm.edu

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Michael Borries wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:12:51 -0700 john g marr said:
> > Harriet:
> >
> > The term "periodical" tells the library patron that the title is
> >an ongoing one, that many issues cover a single subject, and that future
> >issues will supplement the intellectual CONTENT of issues to date. I
> >would describe the difference to be between the continuing nature of
> >periodical CONTENT and the [mere?] physical form of a video tape. Saying
> >something is a "video tape" is akin to saying something is a "paperback":
> >no sense of content is implied at all.
> >
> >
> > John G. Marr
> > Zimmerman Libr., Catalog Dept.
> > Univ. of New Mexico
> > Albuquerque, NM 87131
> > jm...@unm.edu
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Harriet Hassler wrote:
> >
> >> Dear autocatters:
> >>
> >> In our library we use a specialized thesaurus developed for our agency
> >> for subject indexing instead of LCSH. The thesaurus is being revised
> >> and we in the library are considering what new terms we need to use to
> >> serve an equivalent function of form subdivisions in LCSH.
> >>
> >> I cannot quite get a understanding of why "Periodicals" is used as a form
> >> subdivision when something _is a_ periodical but when something _is a_
> >> video tape no form subdivision for video tapes is assigned.
> >>
> >> I can see a difference between subdivisions such as "Case studies",
> >> "Biography", "Abstracts", which do refer more to the content than the
> >> format of the carrier, and a concept such "Video tape". But I am having
> >> trouble clearly explaining to myself or others the exact conceptual
> >> difference between "periodical" and "video tape."
> >>
> >> What is a good explanation to a non-cataloger of why we might assign the
> >> descriptor "periodicals" to a periodical but not the descriptor "video
> >> tapes" to a video tape?
> >>
> >> Or is it just a case that local LC use justified the application of the
> >> "periodicals" subdivision at the time this practice began (this
> >> information is now duplicated in other parts of the record) and if
> >> we feel that our users would be benefitted by a "video tapes" descriptor
> >> that would be reasonable? (Even though that information is also
> >> duplicated, and searchable, in other parts of the record).
> >>
> >> Any help will be appreciated,
> >>
> >> -Harriet
> >>
> >> Harriet Hassler
> >> USAID Library
> >> PPC/CDIE/DI
> >> RRB M.01-010
> >> Washington, DC 20523-1000
> >> (202) 712-0383
> >> hhas...@aed.org
> >>
>
> I would respectfully disagree with the statement that videotapes
> are not different in content as well as format from books. I can't
> think of a good way to express it specifically right now, but one
> interacts differently with videotapes than with books. As well,
> one supposes that books more often will have greater depth of
> coverage than videos (how much material can you cover in an hour
> or 1 1/2 hours). On the other hand, videos are obviously far better
> for visual demonstrations. I would favor the subdivision "videotape"
> or something similar, so that readers can zero in on them or avoid
> them, as *the reader* chooses.
>
> Michael S. Borries
> Cataloger, City University of New York
> 555 West 57th Street, 16th Floor
> New York, NY 10019
> ms...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
> (212) 541-0376
>