Journal blogs
Posted by watsonlibrary on November 2, 2006
Something was just brought to my attention that has me scratching my head — and wondering whether any of you out there have come across anything comparable.
The journal Museum anthropology has recently mounted a complementary blog . As you’ll see if you log in (since it’s part of the banner),
This Weblog is an Online Supplement to Museum Anthropology, The Journal of the Council for Museum Anthropology. Museum Anthropology is published twice a year by the Council for Museum Anthropology, a section of the American Anthropological Association, in partnership with the University of California Press. Museum Anthropology publishes articles, commentary, review articles, exhibition and book reviews, and research notes relevant to museum anthropology and the study of material culture.
As advances go it’s pretty intriguing, and may harbinger a larger migration from a certain genre of printed journal to an electronic resource we haven’t considered in our cataloging of serial titles. But what exactly can we do about this from a cataloging standpoint? How does this match with existing MARC field guidelines?
And would somebody else please post here. You’re going to make me self-conscious one day.
Ross
watsonlibrary said
what am I, chopped liver?
n
Ross said
sorry, nbm!
Meg said
Ross, this is very interesting news: weblog supplements to journals. I haven’t encountered one yet myself…thanks for the “heads up.”
Briefly skimming AACR2 and CONSER cataloging guidelines on Catalogers desktop, I don’t see mention of this particular situation. Maybe Museum Anthropolgy is the first example!
But couldn’t the the existing guidelines on cataloging Supplements in AACR2 and related LCRI be used? These guidelines give a procedure for determining the nature of a Supplement and its relationship to the main work, and then for deciding whether to catalog the supplement separately, or with the main work in a note field.
For supplements cataloged separately form the main work, Marc linking entries 770 and 772 can be used.
And would the descriptive cataloging of the weblogs would follow rules for describing remote access Electronic Resources?
Or do you think these guidelines are inadequate for weblog supplements?
watsonlibrary said
Ross,
I read your entry, then Meg’s comment. I, too, checked out the AACRII stuff on supplements, and though the workding, old as some of it is, does not target all the e-forms now available, the general vocabulary and definitions might be “adjusted” to make cataloging supplements in the form of a weblog possible. The 770′2 seem to offer adjustable possibilities; and, if the 770’s could be “adjusted,” couldn’t that work with the 856 or some 800 field to make the e-link?
lipcan3 said
Ross, et al.,
We (as a library) have not yet decided how to handle much material such as this, e.g. the website for Burlington magazine, in its relationship to the parent (print) title- where the electronic resource doesn’t have much to offer. In this case, however, I think there’s enough content to merit a separate record.
Based on the training I’ve had for cataloging electronic resources, one would catalog the blog as an electronic serial. The intent is to publish indefinitely and there is a date-based archive present on the front page.
One of two approaches are possible, though I’ve already expressed my preference, and in general we (MMA libraries) have decided to follow the first:
1. Create a new record for the online supplement and construct added entries to and from this new record. Meg is right about the 770/772 linking entries. You could add an explanatory 580 note if you like. (856s are naturally assumed.)
2. Keep it all on the same record. Use the 856 42 (‘related resource’) field, add the 770 and the 580. There is something neat & tidy about this approach.
Apologies 4 the length, Dan
Jason Baird Jackson said
Hello. My name is Jason Baird Jackson and I am the editor of Museum Anthropology and its companion weblog (http://museumanthropology.blogspot.com/). It is exciting to think that our work would offer a case for serious consideration by a community of cataloging professionals such as those discussing our situation. If I can be of help in your efforts, please let me know. You might be interested to hear that new wrinkles are in the works with various AAA journals (such as ours) that appear in print and in http://www.anthrosource.com. In the near future, journals like ours will print some of the content of each number in the print format and online, but other materials will show up only in http://www.anthrosource. In our case this will enatail publishing (say…) book reviews as PDF documents in anthrosource (with relevant metadata). These would be listed in the print edition table of contents but would appear only in the digital format. In light of your discussion (much of which I cannot follow as a non-specialist), these digital only reviews would be associated with a volume and issue (31.2 for instance) and would have pagination (current plans describe a system such as starting the digital only page numbers at 1001 for issue 1 and 2001 for issue 2 (etc.), but might also be considered a kind of digital supplement to the print edition. This is also a temporary move as everyone eventually envisions digital only journals. Again, if I can help with anything, please let me know.