Heidrum,
I'm not sure that 2.3.2.5 works for this situation, because it begins by
saying: "If the* source of information for the title proper bears a title in
more than one form*, and if both or all of the titles are in the same
language and script, choose the title proper on the basis of the sequence,
layout, or typography of the titles on the source of information." The
instruction then goes on as you show below, but since this instruction is
referring to the "source of information for the title proper", and we are
discussing title information that is not on the same source as the Title
Proper, I don't think this instruction actually applies to our example.
But, based on John's explanation, I now see that the scope for Other Title
Information is: " information that appears in conjunction with, and is
subordinate to, the title proper of a resource." This bears out the idea
that if what looks like Other Title Information is not on the same source as
the Title Proper (in conjunction with it) then it is not actually Other
Title Information--as you say, this is quite a change from our current
thinking.
Just as an aside, this must mean that 2.2.4 ("If information taken from a
source outside the resource itself is supplied in any of the elements listed
below, indicate that fact either by means of a note or by some other means
(e.g., through coding or the use of square brackets).") only applies for
Other Title Information when it comes from the same source as the Title
Proper and that source is outside the resource itself, i.e., both types of
information come from the same source, that is not the resource itself.
If we cannot then consider this information as Other Title Information,
because it is not in conjunction with the Title Proper, then I could see
where the Variant Title scope could apply: "A variant title is a title
associated with a resource that differs from a title recorded as the title
proper, a parallel title proper, other title information, parallel other
title information, earlier title proper, later title proper, key title, or
abbreviated title", i.e., if you have title information that is not recorded
as one of those title elements listed, give it as a Variant Title.
And then, under 2.20.2 Note on Title, we have "Make a note on the source or
basis for a variant title (see 2.3.6.3), ... if it is considered important
for identification or access."
So now, unless someone comes up with yet another twist to this, I will say,
"If what looks like Other Title Information is found on a different source
than the Title Proper, enter it as a Variant Title, if it is considered
important for identification or access (i.e., if you think someone might
want to search by it) and add a note on the source or basis for that Variant
Title, if it is considered important"
This will result in:
Minus MARC:
Variant Title: ...
Note on Title: Variant title from cover.
MARC:
246 1 # $i Variant title from cover: $a ...
Deborah
- - - - - - - -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:48 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information
John,
Thank you. I believe this is the solution to my problem.
Just found the relevant bit in RDA:
"2.3.2.5 Titlein more than one form
(...)
If the other title or titles are considered to be important for
identification or access, record them:
either
a) as other title information (see 2.3.4) or
b) as variant titles (see 2.3.6)"
So, it's rather a matter of definition: If it's not on the same source as
the title proper, than by RDA's definition it cannot be other title
information. The information is nonetheless transcribed, but as a different
element (variant title).
I still find this a bit odd because often enough you would intuitively think
of such texts as "other title information", but I can live with that. The
important thing is to know that it is indeed possible to record the
information in question, and how it is done.
Heidrun
Am 18.12.2012 18:23, schrieb John Hostage:
> If there is no other title information on the source with the title
proper, then the Other title information element is empty, except that it
may be supplied for cartographic resources and moving image resources.
>
> If there is other title information on a different source, it can be
recorded as a variant title (2.3.6).
>
> There were some changes made at the JSC meeting in November that might
affect this discussion. For instance, a proposal to remove Parallel title
proper from 2.2.4 was accepted with revision.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> John Hostage
> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard
> Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194
> Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
>> Wiesenmüller
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:08
>> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title
>> information
>>
>> Deborah,
>>
>> I absolutely agree that the point in question should be handled the
>> way you say in actual cataloging ("If Other Title Information is
>> taken from a different source than the Title Proper, make a note on
>> the source of the Other Title Information if it is considered
>> important"). And I would really love to be convinced by the "note
>> argument" that this is indeed what RDA tells us to do.
>>
>> But somehow it doesn't work for me. I agree that a note on title
>> (2.20.2) can, on principle, also refer to other title information.
>> The sub-chapters 2.20.2.4 and 2.20.2.5 are cases in point. But I can
>> still see no evidence that 2.20.2.3 can be applied to other title
>> elements than the ones which are explicitly mentioned here. And
>> there's still the small problem of 2.3.4.2 stating that we must take
>> other title information from the same source as the title proper - so
>> then why should we make a note saying we've taken it from elsewhere?
>>
>> I like your metaphor of "picking apart a legal document". Myself, I
>> often compare cataloging to the solving of riddles, telling my
>> students that people who like doing puzzles will often also enjoy
cataloging.
>> Personally, I quite like putting rules together step-by-step in order
>> to logically arrive at a solution for a complex situation. But I'd
>> still say that RDA is sometimes overdoing it and seems less explicit
>> than other codes of rules. If we really are supposed to deduce
>> possible sources of information for an element from a rule on a note
>> instead of the chapter called "Sources of information" for the
>> element in question, this would be a rather roundabout way of doing
>> it. In German we've got a saying which roughly translates as: "from
>> behind through the chest in the eye"...
>>
>> Heidrun
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 18.12.2012 16:50, schrieb Deborah Fritz:
>>> Heidrun,
>>>
>>> I only used the parallel title note as an example. So as long as the
>>> 2.20.2.3. note can be applied to Other Title Information, I think we
>>> can use any wording we like for this situation (I just liked the
>>> parallel title
>>> wording)
>>>
>>> So, can we use 2.20.2.3 for a note about Other Title Information? I
>>> believe, yes, because that instruction says: " A note on title is a
>>> note providing information on the source from which a title was
>> taken,
>>> the date the title was viewed, variations in titles, inaccuracies,
>>> deletions, etc., or other information relating to a title."
>>>
>>> And 2.3.1.1 Scope says: " For purposes of resource description,
>> titles
>>> are categorized as follows:
>>> a) title proper (see 2.3.2)
>>> b) parallel title proper (see 2.3.3)
>>> c) other title information (see 2.3.4)"
>>>
>>> As for RDA being like a medieval theological treatise ... we had to
>> do
>>> this kind of step-by-step reasoning with AACR also, to 'tease out'
>>> an answer from a string of rules; I used to tell my workshop
>> participants
>>> that interpreting AACR was like picking apart a legal document, and
>>> now I will say the same for RDA :-}
>>>
>>> If my reasoning turns out to be solid, then in my teaching, I will
>>> simplify all of this to simply say: "If Other Title Information is
>>> taken from a different source than the Title Proper, make a note on
>>> the source of the Other Title Information if it is considered
>> important"
>>> But I will store my thought process somewhere, just in case I ever
>>> have to justify this 'interpretation' to anyone. Unless, of course,
>> we
>>> get an LC-PCC PS or a PS from some other National Library to clarify
>> this for everyone.
>>> What fun, indeed!
>>> Deborah
>>> - - - - - - - -
>>> Deborah Fritz
>>> TMQ, Inc.
>>> debo...@marcofquality.com
>>> www.marcofquality.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>>> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
>>> Wiesenmüller
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:08 AM
>>> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title
>>> information
>>>
>>> Deborah,
>>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> Still, I don't really feel comfortable with this reasoning, because
>>> the case of a parallel title seems rather different from the other
>>> title information, as RDA says in 2.3.3.2: "Take parallel titles
>>> proper from any source within the resource." So, we are explicitly
>>> allowed to take it from any place within the resource - unlike other
>> title information.
>>> Therefore I'm not sure whether we can draw a conclusion by analogy
>> here.
>>> I also find it odd (and a bit worrying) that other title information
>>> is not explicitly mentioned in 2.20.2.3, whereas it is mentioned
>>> explicitly in 2.20.2.4. The only title elements mentioned in
>>> 2.20.2.3 are title proper, parallel title proper, variant title,
>>> earlier title proper and later title proper.
>>>
>>> True, there is an example with a subtitle ("Vol. 1, no. 3- has
>> subtitle:
>>> Studies in educational administration") at 2.20.2.3 but I think this
>>> should be seen as a variant title (cf. the definition: "A variant
>>> title is a title associated with a resource that differs from a
>>> title recorded as the title proper, a parallel title proper, other
>>> title information, parallel other title information, earlier title
>>> proper, later title proper, key title, or abbreviated title.").
>>>
>>> By the way, isn't it funny the way we're doing exegesis on a text
>> like RDA?
>>> Almost as if it was a medieval theological treatise...
>>>
>>> Heidrun
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Deborah Fritz wrote:
>>>> Mulling over 2.3.4.2, for myself, I see it says: "Take other title
>>>> information from the same source as the title proper (see 2.3.2.2)."
>>>>
>>>> OK, that is a very direct instruction--take it from the same source.
>>>>
>>>> Then 2.3.2.2 says: "Take the title proper from the preferred source
>>>> of information for the identification of the resource as specified
>>>> under 2.2.2-2.2.3"
>>>>
>>>> Then 2.2.2.2 says: "For a book "use the title page, title sheet, or
>>>> title card (or image thereof) as the preferred source of
>> information."
>>>> So, I agree with Heidrun that RDA is saying that if you find a
>>>> Title Proper on the title page, then that is the only source that
>>>> you can use for the Other Title Information.
>>>>
>>>> 2.2.4 says "If information taken from a source outside the resource
>>>> itself is supplied [including for other title information],
>>>> indicate that fact either by means of a note or by some other means
>>>> (e.g., through coding or the use of square brackets)." But the
>>>> other title information is not from outside the resource, so, as
>>>> Heidrun says, this does not apply to our situation
>>>>
>>>> But there is the Note instruction at: 2.20.2 Note on Title. Don't
>>>> forget that 'Title' covers all the elements listed under 2.3, so
>> this
>>>> note covers Other Title Information.
>>>>
>>>> 2.20.2.3 specifically mentions making a note for a Parallel Title
>> Proper:
>>>> "If a parallel title proper is taken from a different source than
>> the
>>>> title proper, make a note on the source of the parallel title
>>>> proper if it is considered important"
>>>>
>>>> And then there is 2.20.2.5: "Make notes on other details relating
>>>> to a title if they are considered to be important for
>>>> identification or
>>> access."
>>>> So, I would apply the reasoning given at 2.20.2.3 for Parallel
>>>> Title Proper to Other Title Information and say that if Other Title
>>>> Information is taken from a different source than the Title Proper,
>>>> we can make a note on the source of the Other Title Information if
>> it
>>>> is
>>> considered important.
>>>> And in MARC terms that would mean that a note about a subtitle from
>> a
>>>> cover would be given in the 246 (just as we have been doing under
>>>> AACR)
>>> as:
>>>> 246 1# $i Subtitle from cover: $a VF-17's Top Guns in World War II
>>>>
>>>> Does this sound logical?
>>>>
>>>> Deborah
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>>>> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
>>>> Wiesenmüller
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:59 AM
>>>> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>>>> Subject: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information
>>>>
>>>> I'm mulling over RDA 2.3.4.2: "Take other title information from
>>>> the same source as the title proper."
>>>>
>>>> With books, the title proper is usually found on the title page.
>> Does
>>>> that really mean that under RDA I can only take other title
>>>> information which is also placed on the t.p.? It's certainly not
>>>> uncommon to find useful other title information elsewhere in the
>>>> resource, e.g. on the cover. According to our German rules, I'd
>>>> record this as other title information as well, but put it in
>>>> square brackets (to indicate that it doesn't come from the
>>>> prescribed
>> source).
>>>> As square brackets (or some other means) in RDA are only used to
>> mark
>>>> information stemming from outside the resource, I'd have assumed
>> that
>>>> all other title information found on the resource itself (no matter
>>>> where) is recorded in the same way. But 2.3.4.2 makes it seem as if
>>>> other title information which is not in the same place as the title
>>>> proper is simply disregarded.
>>>>
>>>> I can't believe that this is really the case. So I must either have
>>>> misunderstood 2.3.4.2 or missed another rule, probably a more
>> general one.
>>>> I've already read through 2.2 carefully, but haven't found a clue.
>>>> Can somebody enlighten me?
>>>>
>>>> Heidrun
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ---------------------
>>>> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>>>> Stuttgart Media University
>>>> Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191
>>>> Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>>> --
>>> ---------------------
>>> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>>> Stuttgart Media University
>>> Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191
>>> Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------
>> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>> Stuttgart Media University
>> Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191
>> Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart,
Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
