 |
 |
This discussion actually is an error in information retrieval and information searching. and not about any implications about "meager reception" and so on. As first mentioned, this is a continuation title and a series, something most catalogers would know about at least in terms of how such an item would be processed in a library and how it would be also found in a bibliographic database such as WorldCat. Such problems in verifying holdings and format are a good example for LIS educators about the importance of teaching cataloging today. the Library of Congress is one standard to look at first which is also located in Worldcat records. We can see that when this title first started, it had different editors. When you have subsequent editions of a title that continues, such materials usually stay classified the same way as the first volume of the title was and it becomes annotated. Unless there are significant changes, it stays usually as the continuation/series record. So we can look back to this first volume back in 1968 of the first edition edited by Allen Kent et al. please see here: http://lccn.loc.gov/68031232 1st edition different editors & cataloged as a series/continuation at LC This is classified as a series at most libraries still. and a quick look at WorldCat showed me under one record some 332+ holding locations for this series as standing orders. see OCLC: 4380549 for the original series record that was updated in 2010 in Worldcat So while we have many different formats, print, ebook, e-resource , we also have various ways that these have been and continue to be cataloged with holdings in WorldCat. If you did a quick personal name search in WorldCat say for Bates, Marcia, this also likely will not pull up editors and only authors. for the 2010 edition in print I saw over 55 or so holdings on one record -keep in mind there were several other records in e-formats. Then keep in mind the main original way these were cataloged as continuations were on series records, not monographs (i.e. one time publications). These are very important examples for educators to also understand differences in formats, organization of information, and how users --students, faculty, researchers and John Q. Public find and access information today. It's MISINFORMATION coming out of the various pipelines. I hope this has been helpful, I'm delighted to see the 3rd edition available and hope to see many more editions in the years ahead. Again, big thanks to Dr Bates & Dr Maack for your dedicated work on this project that is and remains--a standard also for the accreditation of our library & information science education programs by continuing to maintain these high quality standard reference resources in our field. Best regards, Karen Weaver, MLS, Electronic Resources Statistician, Duquesne University, Gumberg Library, Pittsburgh PA email: [log in to unmask] /Gmail: [log in to unmask] On 4/3/11, Laval Hunsucker <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > OK, folks. Quite apart from this nice little bilateral discussion > that has now arisen, . . . > > The simple fact remains that the product in question has met > with an exceptionally meager reception. And that this means > that all of that fantastic content on which so many colleagues > have expended such effort not merely is "not freely available" > -- it is hardly accessible at all to probably the vast majority > of those fellow professionals in the world who could -- and > should be able to -- directly benefit from its use. Or to those > who ( like me ) would in any event very much like at least to > be in a position to consult the resource from time to time. Or > to most students or, say, interdisciplinary researchers. Not to > mention its (non)accessibility to an interested, or potentially > interested, general public. > > Shouldn't this by itself give pause, and occasion for reflection, > to all concerned -- not least of all to those who have actually > participated in bringing the project to fruition ? > > That's the real issue, no ? Was the chosen approach indeed > the best one ? A right one ? Why has such a large portion > of the projected, and potential, market not been convinced ? > And what can be done to right the matter -- beyond pathetic > appeals to reconsider and finally shell out that three grand, > aimed at the hardcore LIS education sector ? Are there > perhaps broader implications here for questions of scholarly > communication, professional development, and progress in > our field ? For the health, or even survival, of our field ? > > Silly questions ? Anyway, enough questions. > > And answers ? > > > > - Laval Hunsucker > Breukelen, Nederland > >