Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Transcribed information in transcribed fields only? I can't see the point of
it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're examining more
obscure.
Hear hear to reviving GMDs!
A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into something
more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the opposite, it's removal
and replacement with a clutter of significantly less user-friendly codified
record cloggers (the 330s).
The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is combine
carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as:
DVD video
DVD audio
DVD-ROM
Audio CD
Video CD
CD-ROM
Videocassette
Audiocassette
Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what we've got
more than the 330s will..
Too late now?
Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Michael Bernhard said:
Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in
addition to the new 33x fields)?
This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed information in
transcribed fields. The same reasoning was behind the abandonment of [sic]
or supplying missing letters in brackets. I think the reasoning behind no
additions was to make it easier to use captured data without change. Use
without even standardizing punctuation is allowed.
We fail to see what captured data they have in mind. We find ONIX information
often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to just start from
scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs.
It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing jurisdictions in
260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was accepted.
Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean Riddle
Weihs, as well contrary to common sense. Granted GMDs could have been improved
by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps even compound GMDs, but with
shorter and more patron friendly terms
than RDA's 33X. The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked
quite well in our experience. Only systems able to provide understandable
icons will escape the inconvenience of the missing GMD.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Main entry in RDA
On 22/10/2012 23:41, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip I see no advantage in combining 100/240 or 100/245 in nuMARC. They only need to be combined in 600 and 700. In new title lists we print, we give the 100 once, with 245s after in alphabetic order. I see no need to repeat the 100 in print or OPAC display before each title. I suspect we will abandon all print poducts with nuMARC, and leave our clients to cope in terms of OPAC display. We've never seen an OPAC display we like better than unlabeled ISBD. We agree with Martha Yee: http://slc.bc.ca/yee.pdf /snip With modern systems, you can display anything however you want. So, if a series of records authored by William Shakespeare is already displaying Shakespeare, William, you can tell the computer not to display it more than once. It can be done in other ways too. For instance, if you search Worldcat for William Shakespeare, http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=william+shakespeareqt=results_page, you will see in the facets section William Shakespeare (45010). His name only displays once, and it could appear only once in other ways on the page. True, there is the unfortunate Shakespeare William (383) which should represent 383 errors of different sorts such as no date, wrong date, coding errors, etc. I have personally never really understood the reasoning for 1xx/240 but I have always assumed it had something to do with limitations on early displays. I won't bring up single main entry vs. multiple main entries again. Still, I completely agree about the unlabeled ISBD display. In my opinion, with the cards, people rarely understood the power and utility of the tracings and these needed to be made more prominent--as they are by turning them into hyperlinks. People have lots of trouble understanding what they see in the catalog and how to use it, but I don't think it has much--if anything--to do with the information in the records and how it is displayed. The problems are much deeper. Besides, they see far weirder things every day all over the web than they would ever encounter in an unlabeled ISBD display. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
How about using the $k subfield instead?
Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245:
$k - Form
Term that is descriptive of the form of the described materials,
determined by an examination of their physical character, subject of
their intellectual content, or the order of information within them
(e.g., daybooks, diaries, directories, journals, memoranda, etc.).
245 10$aFour years at Yale :$kdiaries,$f1903 Sept. 16-1907 Oct. 5.
245 00$aPL 17 Hearing Files$kCase Files$f1974$pDistrict 6$hmicrofilm
(jacketted in fiche).
245 14$aThe charity ball :$ba comedy in four acts
:$ktypescript,$f1889 /$cby David Belasco and Henry C. DeMille.
Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to
convey the nature of a resource (we have this issue with
three-dimensional objects and with manuscripts) might find the $k
subfield in the 245 more hospitable to this type of information. Of
course, this would necessitate changes to RDA, but the revision process
is ongoing.
Liz O'Keefe
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3405
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org
Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now
on
the web at
http://corsair.themorgan.org
Kelleher, Martin mart...@liverpool.ac.uk 10/23/2012 5:05 AM
Transcribed information in transcribed fields only? I can't see the
point of it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're
examining more obscure.
Hear hear to reviving GMDs!
A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into
something more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the
opposite, it's removal and replacement with a clutter of significantly
less user-friendly codified record cloggers (the 330s).
The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is
combine carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as:
DVD video
DVD audio
DVD-ROM
Audio CD
Video CD
CD-ROM
Videocassette
Audiocassette
Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what
we've got more than the 330s will..
Too late now?
Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Michael Bernhard said:
Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in
addition to the new 33x fields)?
This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed
information in transcribed fields. The same reasoning was behind the
abandonment of [sic] or supplying missing letters in brackets. I
think the reasoning behind no additions was to make it easier to use
captured data without change. Use without even standardizing
punctuation is allowed.
We fail to see what captured data they have in mind. We find ONIX
information often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to just
start from scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs.
It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing jurisdictions
in 260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was accepted.
Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean
Riddle Weihs, as well contrary to common sense. Granted GMDs could have
been improved by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps even
compound GMDs, but with shorter and more patron friendly terms
than RDA's 33X. The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked
quite well in our experience. Only systems able to provide
understandable icons will escape the inconvenience of the missing GMD.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing http://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Well, it would still be nonstandard, plus probably isn't set up in most systems to act like GMDs. Assuming the cataloguers at our institution decide on such a direction, we'll probably just keep using $h unless the systems stop accepting them. Given the widespread support for GMD, it may be supported for some time to come, hopefully until the RDA powers-that-be come up with a more effective alternative Failing that, I guess we could use the same terminologies in one of the 330 fields, or perhaps a local field, and either suppress from display or delete the remainder. If we're talking revising RDA, I'd prefer to re-instate the GMDs (with revised terminology) and abolish the 330s - I think that would be quite a popular revision! Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe Sent: 23 October 2012 13:03 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA How about using the $k subfield instead? Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245: $k - Form Term that is descriptive of the form of the described materials, determined by an examination of their physical character, subject of their intellectual content, or the order of information within them (e.g., daybooks, diaries, directories, journals, memoranda, etc.). 245 10$aFour years at Yale :$kdiaries,$f1903 Sept. 16-1907 Oct. 5. 245 00$aPL 17 Hearing Files$kCase Files$f1974$pDistrict 6$hmicrofilm (jacketted in fiche). 245 14$aThe charity ball :$ba comedy in four acts :$ktypescript,$f1889 /$cby David Belasco and Henry C. DeMille. Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to convey the nature of a resource (we have this issue with three-dimensional objects and with manuscripts) might find the $k subfield in the 245 more hospitable to this type of information. Of course, this would necessitate changes to RDA, but the revision process is ongoing. Liz O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org Kelleher, Martin mart...@liverpool.ac.uk 10/23/2012 5:05 AM Transcribed information in transcribed fields only? I can't see the point of it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're examining more obscure. Hear hear to reviving GMDs! A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into something more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the opposite, it's removal and replacement with a clutter of significantly less user-friendly codified record cloggers (the 330s). The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is combine carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as: DVD video DVD audio DVD-ROM Audio CD Video CD CD-ROM Videocassette Audiocassette Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what we've got more than the 330s will.. Too late now? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Michael Bernhard said: Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in addition to the new 33x fields)? This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed information in transcribed fields. The same reasoning was behind the abandonment of [sic] or supplying missing letters in brackets. I think the reasoning behind no additions was to make it easier to use captured data without change. Use without even standardizing punctuation is allowed. We fail to see what captured data they have in mind. We find ONIX information often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to just start from scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs. It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing jurisdictions in 260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was accepted. Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean Riddle Weihs, as well contrary to common sense. Granted GMDs could have been improved by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps even compound GMDs, but with shorter and more patron friendly terms than RDA's 33X. The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked quite well in our experience. Only
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Or, you can just keep it locally, which is what we plan to do. When staff have a patron standing in front of them, or on the phone, seeking help, they use the #h [gmd] description to quickly distinguish which type of material is wanted by the patron. That is supposed to be the basis of the entire FRBR/RDA changeover. If I told them they had to read 336, 337 and 338 to determine item type, especially once I showed them the terms used (oh yes and and 'unmediated text' is a book) they would troop down to Tech Services en masse and ask me if I had lost my mind. In the OPAC, III's field 30 Mat Type generates an a very specific icon, so we are okay there. We are currently suppressing the 3xxs in the public display. They take up too much room in the display because of where they fall, and they convey no useful information to searchers. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community -Original Message- From: Kelleher, Martin [mailto:mart...@liverpool.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:17 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well, it would still be nonstandard, plus probably isn't set up in most systems to act like GMDs. Assuming the cataloguers at our institution decide on such a direction, we'll probably just keep using $h unless the systems stop accepting them. Given the widespread support for GMD, it may be supported for some time to come, hopefully until the RDA powers-that-be come up with a more effective alternative Failing that, I guess we could use the same terminologies in one of the 330 fields, or perhaps a local field, and either suppress from display or delete the remainder. If we're talking revising RDA, I'd prefer to re-instate the GMDs (with revised terminology) and abolish the 330s - I think that would be quite a popular revision! Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe Sent: 23 October 2012 13:03 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA How about using the $k subfield instead? Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245: $k - Form Term that is descriptive of the form of the described materials, determined by an examination of their physical character, subject of their intellectual content, or the order of information within them (e.g., daybooks, diaries, directories, journals, memoranda, etc.). 245 10$aFour years at Yale :$kdiaries,$f1903 Sept. 16-1907 Oct. 5. 245 00$aPL 17 Hearing Files$kCase Files$f1974$pDistrict 6$hmicrofilm (jacketted in fiche). 245 14$aThe charity ball :$ba comedy in four acts :$ktypescript,$f1889 /$cby David Belasco and Henry C. DeMille. Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to convey the nature of a resource (we have this issue with three-dimensional objects and with manuscripts) might find the $k subfield in the 245 more hospitable to this type of information. Of course, this would necessitate changes to RDA, but the revision process is ongoing. Liz O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org Kelleher, Martin mart...@liverpool.ac.uk 10/23/2012 5:05 AM Transcribed information in transcribed fields only? I can't see the point of it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're examining more obscure. Hear hear to reviving GMDs! A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into something more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the opposite, it's removal and replacement with a clutter of significantly less user-friendly codified record cloggers (the 330s). The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is combine carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as: DVD video DVD audio DVD-ROM Audio CD Video CD CD-ROM Videocassette Audiocassette Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what we've got more than the 330s will.. Too late now? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
For some of the background that led to the abandonment of the GMD, see http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html#GMD -- 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 Bernhard, Michael Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 18:39 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in addition to the new 33x fields)? Or are the new rules already so set in stone that such a change could not be considered? It seems that many of you in these conversations (and many others whose views you report) see a definite need for the continued application of the GMD. (I apologize for not being aware of the thinking that led to the abandonment of the GMD.)
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
As preliminary studies were undertaken that led to the creation of RDA, it became obvious that the GMD was an intellectually inconsistent hodgepodge of terminology. Sound recording managed to encompass an entire content category of recorded sound. Meanwhile, motion picture and videorecording split the content of 2-dimensional moving images into two primary media categories. Similarly microform and electronic resource effectively addressed media categories of textual content, although electronic resource could also encompass the content of computer files. Historically, I suspect it was the disconnect between electronic resource GMD and the computer file Record Type that signaled the beginning of the end. Veteran catalogers may remember when all electronic resources, including those with textual content, were cataloged on a computer file format. Around 1998, we changed that guidance to today's practice of restricting computer file format to strictly computer oriented content that the divisions in content, medium, and carrier became pronounced. Things only acerbated as more material was digitized, as well as the proliferation of formats for shiny, round, digital things. When a digital version of a sound recording could be encoded on a DVD-ROM, and as websites emerged capable of joining textual content with streaming imagery and sound, the nails were being put in the coffin. The need was obvious to clearly articulate the divisions between computer file content, digital media, and various digital carriers for a wide variety of non-computer file content. It is hard to dispute concerns that the resulting terminology is unwieldy. The system and display issues of incorporating the new MARC fields conveying this data into both lists and individual record displays are also significant. But a system that unambiguously encodes the nature of these three facets -- content, medium, and carrier -- is the long overdue fulfillment of an important need, and a necessary transition from the fuzzy categories represented by the GMD. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623 -Original Message- Michael Bernhard wrote: Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in addition to the new 33x fields)? Or are the new rules already so set in stone that such a change could not be considered? It seems that many of you in these conversations (and many others whose views you report) see a definite need for the continued application of the GMD. (I apologize for not being aware of the thinking that led to the abandonment of the GMD.)
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
I don't recall that anyone has mentioned that during the RDA test period, the copyright date was core. Since 264 had not yet been implemented, it would explain why 260 fields in RDA records include both the publication date and the copyright date or the inferred publication date and the copyright date. In the current PCC/LC PS, the copyright date is no longer core. In the PCC/LC PS transcription of the copyright date is not mandatory if an inferred date of publication has been supplied, so the cataloger has the option to transcribe or omit the copyright date. I wouldn't be surprised if some catalogers who got their initial training during the test period continued to transcribe the copyright date even when it was no longer core and even if there was a publication date transcribed in 264 #1. I don't know whether the 440 vs. 490/830 analogy works. The problem with 440 was that it combined description and controlled access in one MARC field; 490/830 clearly recorded the distinction between the series as it appeared vs. the series as controlled access. In the 264 situation, controlled access does not factor in; it's a question of what is worth transcribing or recording in a wholly descriptive context. With regard to copyright dates, there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether these are worth including as part of the description, so no best practice has been defined so far. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates Gene Fieg wrote: Why include both dates when one will do. When one will do for what? Date of publication and date of copyright are *not* the same thing. They may often (one might argue most of the time) appear identical. But they are two entirely different things. Just like the series statement, and the series access point, are two entirely different things. Recently we were *finally* able to do away with the all-purpose 440 field in MARC. And now we're starting to move away from the all-purpose 260 $c. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe Sent: October 23, 2012 8:03 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA ... Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to convey the nature of a resource (we have this issue with three-dimensional objects and with manuscripts) might find the $k subfield in the 245 more hospitable to this type of information. Of course, this would necessitate changes to RDA, but the revision process is ongoing. Perhaps, but there are issues of overlap of what each element is supposed to convey. As with the GMD, the 336, 337, 338 values are general. Putting more specificity into the GMD is as problematic as putting more specificity into 336-337-338 elements. There already were many kludges to fix the GMD to get some useful specificity such as [videorecording (DVD)] or [sound recording (CD)]. For many, the GMD was a hopeless and flawed practice, and certainly a big reason to have it changed. The 336 is also an Expression term that can exist in authority records, whereas 337 and 338 are Manifestation terms. The 336 Content Type can be a qualifier for authorized access points for expressions. There are also some decisions that are trigged from the broad categorizations in 336-337-338 such as when to create a new record for a serial, and matching the value that is in the Extent element. Also, there is a good correspondence between many 336, 337, and 338 values and MARC fixed fields, so in some ways one would still be making the same kinds of decisions about content and carrier. I don't think the 336-337-338 fields can be ignored because they are interwoven into other parts of RDA and there are some dependencies built in. One useful Content Type term is spoken word which I would very much like to see displayed more prominently (as opposed to terms like non-musical sound recording). The nature of the resource is also covered by other Work and Expression elements, and the RDA-MARC Toolkit map has $k pointing to other possible RDA elements. I think more effort needs to be made on the whole form/genre issue as RDA 6.3 (Form of Work) and RDA 7.2 (Nature of the Content) only carry forward the limited scopes found in AACR2. The problem though is that we jump at the idea of a physical location for a field (right after the title) and desire to pour into that field that perfect term for the resource. But often that choice for a term reflects different aspects of resources. The path we should be following is to separate out terms logically, and then build consistent and meaningful displays from that process as a secondary step. For continued local use of $h in 245 I don't see a problem in the short term. One way to approach this is to isolate $h properly (no punctuation included) so that batch updates can easily delete or change the value in this field. There does seem to be some confusion though, as the GMD's placement in the 245 doesn't mean that this term has to be part of the title element ($h was never a transcribed value like the title proper-- there are separate elements being discussed here, even though in MARC the punctuation is entangled). For local use of 245$h I would at least end the inclusion of punctuation, as I mentioned, and perhaps put the subfield at the end (often 245 $c is dropped from Title Browse displays or separated in online catalog displays, so there's room for experimentation based upon current system mapping for displays and indexes). Locally, we've used many variations over the years, including other fields such as 590, 591, 690, 691 to capture aspects of the resource that couldn't be captured in traditional MARC fields. Perhaps the biggest frustration I get in these discussion is the conflation of issues. A discussion of controlled vocabulary terms shouldn't be bogged down by display issues. For some, the GMD means a field stuck after the title (an 'early warning' tool); for others it just means that perfect term or phrase that captures the essence of the resource (and therefore where it's placed is not the issue). These two aspects for describing general content and carrier terms need to be separated. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
It's just a shame it fails to successfully impart this information in an effective and concise fashion, as could have perhaps been managed with more commonly employed terminology. :-( Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F. Sent: 23 October 2012 14:58 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA But a system that unambiguously encodes the nature of these three facets -- content, medium, and carrier -- is the long overdue fulfillment of an important need, and a necessary transition from the fuzzy categories represented by the GMD. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623 -Original Message- Michael Bernhard wrote: Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in addition to the new 33x fields)? Or are the new rules already so set in stone that such a change could not be considered? It seems that many of you in these conversations (and many others whose views you report) see a definite need for the continued application of the GMD. (I apologize for not being aware of the thinking that led to the abandonment of the GMD.)
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
The current GMD isn't fuzzy. It's quite obvious. The material is a sound recording, microform, or videorecording, etc. There is an additional field on the records (500, 538) that explains what kind of sound recording or what kind of microform or what kind of videorecording the material happens to be. Non-library employed users aren't going to understand content, medium, and carrier. They're going to have to ask the Reference folks for help. And maybe that's the point of RDA? Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
I would not call this GMD quite obvious: Trouble blues|h[electronic resource] /|cCurtis Jones. This is in a record for streaming audio, that is, a sound recording. On the other hand, our catalog also has this: Ariadne auf Naxos|h[electronic resource] =|bAriadne on Naxos. Is this for a sound recording of the opera, or a digital score? As it happens, it's neither-it's a digitized pamphlet about the opera. I'd call that fuzzy. Our catalog is overflowing with these. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jerri Swinehart Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:22 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA The current GMD isn't fuzzy. It's quite obvious. The material is a sound recording, microform, or videorecording, etc. There is an additional field on the records (500, 538) that explains what kind of sound recording or what kind of microform or what kind of videorecording the material happens to be. Non-library employed users aren't going to understand content, medium, and carrier. They're going to have to ask the Reference folks for help. And maybe that's the point of RDA? Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
The major of purpose of GMD is to draw users' attention to material types, since it is an important factor for users to make a decision on selecting items. Is there any way for OPAC systems to show material types in a intuitive and friendly way based on the three 33x fields? Curious. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote: I would not call this GMD “quite obvious”: ** ** Trouble blues|h[electronic resource] /|cCurtis Jones. ** ** This is in a record for streaming audio, that is, a sound recording. ** ** On the other hand, our catalog also has this: ** ** Ariadne auf Naxos|h[electronic resource] =|bAriadne on Naxos. ** ** Is this for a sound recording of the opera, or a digital score? As it happens, it’s neither—it’s a digitized pamphlet about the opera. ** ** I’d call that fuzzy. Our catalog is overflowing with these. ** ** Bob ** ** Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 ** ** We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Jerri Swinehart *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:22 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA ** ** The current GMD isn't fuzzy. It's quite obvious. The material is a sound recording, microform, or videorecording, etc. There is an additional field on the records (500, 538) that explains what kind of sound recording or what kind of microform or what kind of videorecording the material happens to be. Non-library employed users aren't going to understand content, medium, and carrier. They're going to have to ask the Reference folks for help. And maybe that's the point of RDA? Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
There is supposed to be an additional field that clarifies what each GMD is ... It's added all the time to videorecording records etc. Masking phrases for URLs are also a good way to signal to non-library employed users how to access an electronic resource. We use, Click here for access. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
Steven Arakawa wrote: I don't know whether the 440 vs. 490/830 analogy works. The problem with 440 was that it combined description and controlled access in one MARC field; 490/830 clearly recorded the distinction between the series as it appeared vs. the series as controlled access. In the 264 situation, controlled access does not factor in; it's a question of what is worth transcribing or recording in a wholly descriptive context. With regard to copyright dates, there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether these are worth including as part of the description, so no best practice has been defined so far. Description vs. controlled access was not the point of the analogy. The point was that there was a single MARC element containing two entirely different things. In the case of 440, yes, the two entirely different things happened to involve a transcription vs. controlled access situation. In the case of 260 $c, while it's not transcription vs. controlled access, it's still a situation of having two entirely different things coded with the same MARC tag. Publication date and copyright date are not the same thing, yet both are 260 $c. I think the analogy is quite appropriate. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual role, why not split it? Currently, the 245 is description and access point. Should we split them? On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.eduwrote: Steven Arakawa wrote: I don't know whether the 440 vs. 490/830 analogy works. The problem with 440 was that it combined description and controlled access in one MARC field; 490/830 clearly recorded the distinction between the series as it appeared vs. the series as controlled access. In the 264 situation, controlled access does not factor in; it's a question of what is worth transcribing or recording in a wholly descriptive context. With regard to copyright dates, there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether these are worth including as part of the description, so no best practice has been defined so far. Description vs. controlled access was not the point of the analogy. The point was that there was a single MARC element containing two entirely different things. In the case of 440, yes, the two entirely different things happened to involve a transcription vs. controlled access situation. In the case of 260 $c, while it's not transcription vs. controlled access, it's still a situation of having two entirely different things coded with the same MARC tag. Publication date and copyright date are not the same thing, yet both are 260 $c. I think the analogy is quite appropriate. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
Gene Fieg wrote: Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual role, why not split it? Currently, the 245 is description and access point. Should we split them? We already do this, though inconsistently, through uniform titles/preferred title of the work, yes? Karen Karen Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library Information Science Dominican University 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305 ks...@dom.edumailto:ks...@dom.edu 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax)
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
When they differ, and the difference matters for retrieval, we do. Uniform titles (or, controlled access points for works and expressions). Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:03 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual role, why not split it? Currently, the 245 is description and access point. Should we split them? On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu wrote: Steven Arakawa wrote: I don't know whether the 440 vs. 490/830 analogy works. The problem with 440 was that it combined description and controlled access in one MARC field; 490/830 clearly recorded the distinction between the series as it appeared vs. the series as controlled access. In the 264 situation, controlled access does not factor in; it's a question of what is worth transcribing or recording in a wholly descriptive context. With regard to copyright dates, there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether these are worth including as part of the description, so no best practice has been defined so far. Description vs. controlled access was not the point of the analogy. The point was that there was a single MARC element containing two entirely different things. In the case of 440, yes, the two entirely different things happened to involve a transcription vs. controlled access situation. In the case of 260 $c, while it's not transcription vs. controlled access, it's still a situation of having two entirely different things coded with the same MARC tag. Publication date and copyright date are not the same thing, yet both are 260 $c. I think the analogy is quite appropriate. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939tel:%28847%29%20491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
Getting back to my original question concerning [date of publication not identified] and DtSt, Dates, based upon the answers received so far, there is currently no way to code 264_1 $c [date of publication not identified] and 264 _4 $c copyright [insert year] in DtSt and Dates. If this is the case, that's fine - it answers my question and tells me that I need to instruct my students not to use this combination even though, as Robert Maxwell correctly pointed out, this is a valid transcription according to RDA. Just one more accommodation for the sake of MARC, I suppose. I want to thank everyone for their responses. Karen Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library Information Science Dominican University 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305 ks...@dom.edumailto:ks...@dom.edu 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax)
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
We don't display the new 3xx fields in our OPAC either; I've always thought it was obvious from the controlled, technical vocabulary used in $a $2 that 336-338 $a and $2 were not intended for display. However, in our system the fields are keyword indexed. In the current and near future catalog, they should be relatively easy to apply to keyword filters running in the background. Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more control over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for content and media type. The MARC Authorities example 338 ## $asheet$2rdacarrier$3liner notes Other possibilities? (throwing these out for consideration). At your next cataloger cocktail party, think up your own opac labels and index displays! For jazz performance recordings on an Ipod 336 ## $aperformed music$2rdacontent$3jazz 337 ## $aaudio$2rdamedia$3mp3 audio 338 ## $aother$2rdacarrier$3Ipod Public labels in record display: Format: jazz Access via: mp3 audio On: Ipod Index display: authortitle icon of loudspeaker used in Windows tray (Ipod) term pulled from 338 $3 For an online map: 336 ## $acartographic image$2rdacontent$3e-map 337 ## $acomputer$2rdamedia$3any university computer 338 ## $aonline resource$2rdacarrier$3Internet website Public labels: Format: e-map Access via: any university computer On: Internet website Index display: authortitleicon of globe(Internet website) For an e-book: 336 ## $atext$2rdacontent$3e-book 337 ## $acomputer$rdamedia$3e-reader 338 ## $acomputer card$2rdacarrier$3Kindle Public labels: Format: e-book Access via: e-reader On: Kindle Index display: authortitleicon of book(Kindle) Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:02 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Or, you can just keep it locally, which is what we plan to do. When staff have a patron standing in front of them, or on the phone, seeking help, they use the #h [gmd] description to quickly distinguish which type of material is wanted by the patron. That is supposed to be the basis of the entire FRBR/RDA changeover. If I told them they had to read 336, 337 and 338 to determine item type, especially once I showed them the terms used (oh yes and and 'unmediated text' is a book) they would troop down to Tech Services en masse and ask me if I had lost my mind. In the OPAC, III's field 30 Mat Type generates an a very specific icon, so we are okay there. We are currently suppressing the 3xxs in the public display. They take up too much room in the display because of where they fall, and they convey no useful information to searchers. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community -Original Message- From: Kelleher, Martin [mailto:mart...@liverpool.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:17 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well, it would still be nonstandard, plus probably isn't set up in most systems to act like GMDs. Assuming the cataloguers at our institution decide on such a direction, we'll probably just keep using $h unless the systems stop accepting them. Given the widespread support for GMD, it may be supported for some time to come, hopefully until the RDA powers-that-be come up with a more effective alternative Failing that, I guess we could use the same terminologies in one of the 330 fields, or perhaps a local field, and either suppress from display or delete the remainder. If we're talking revising RDA, I'd prefer to re-instate the GMDs (with revised terminology) and abolish the 330s - I think that would be quite a popular revision! Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe Sent: 23 October 2012 13:03 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA How about using the $k subfield instead? Here is the current MARC definition of this
[RDA-L] 264 and local distributors
If we wanted to record a distributor (cf. RDA 21.4), and that distributor was only responsible for distribution in a particular geographic area, would we use 264 $3 (materials specified)? E.g.: Piscataway, NJ : $b Transactions Publishers, Rutgers University, $c [2012] $3 Copies distributed in North America This is not usually how materials specified is used but the current field definition seems to accommodate multiple, successive distributors with the first indicator, but not multiple synchronous distributors. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] 264 and local distributors
Benjamin Abrahamse wrote: If we wanted to record a distributor (cf. RDA 21.4), and that distributor was only responsible for distribution in a particular geographic area, would we use 264 $3 (materials specified)? E.g.: Piscataway, NJ : $b Transactions Publishers, Rutgers University, $c [2012] $3 Copies distributed in North America This is not usually how materials specified is used but the current field definition seems to accommodate multiple, successive distributors with the first indicator, but not multiple synchronous distributors. If the same manifestation is being distributed by different entities, this looks to me like an appropriate use of subfield $3. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] 264 and local distributors
If look at the examples from OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards, yours is not correct. ‡3 Materials specified Information to differentiate the multiple statements of the described materials to which the field applies. 260 Paris : ‡a New York :‡b Vogue ‡c 1964- 260 2 ‡3 1980-May 1993 ‡a London :‡b Vogue 260 3 ‡3 June 1993- ‡a London :‡b Elle 260 2 ‡3 2000?-2002 ‡a New York :‡b Columbia University Press Thanks, Joan Wang On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: If we wanted to record a distributor (cf. RDA 21.4), and that distributor was only responsible for distribution in a particular geographic area, would we use 264 $3 (materials specified)? ** ** E.g.: Piscataway, NJ : $b Transactions Publishers, Rutgers University, $c [2012] $3 Copies distributed in North America ** ** This is not usually how materials specified is used but the current field definition seems to accommodate multiple, successive distributors with the first indicator, but not multiple synchronous distributors. ** ** --Ben ** ** Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 ** ** -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
Perhaps the biggest frustration I get in these discussion is the
conflation of issues. A discussion of controlled vocabulary terms
shouldn't be bogged down by display issues.
Display issues? The function of 245$h or 33X would seem to me to
facilitate discovery of desired resources. It would seem to me that
how they are displayed is central to their serving their purpose.
The major problems we see with 33X is that some terms are too long for
convenient display, are redundant, or are obscure (e,g,,tactile three
dimensional object; object would suffice).
Relator terms have the same problems. It is not necessary to include
film or sound film in relator terms; it is clear from the record
what is directed or composed; director or composer would suffice.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
Karen Snow said:
... there is currently no way to code 264_1 $c [date of publication
not identified] and 264 _4 $c copyright [insert year] in DtSt and
Dates.
Thankfully. Having date ... not identified and a date in the same
record makes us look very foolish. If nuMARC allows coding such a
combintion, I hope it is never applied.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Steven Arakawa wrote: Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more control over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for content and media type. 33X subfield $3 is for Materials specified, meaning the portion of the resource to which the field applies. The example: 338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term sheet applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it accompanies. Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a. The definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in other fields such as 490. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion. But, back to the original question - why do the extra work? Our current gmds are very clear and succinct: dvd, compact disc, comic book; book on cd, etc. Why make people try to figure out a combination of 3 terms when one simple clear statement is already in place and tells them what they need? People in this case being staff who are trying to get items to patrons. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community -Original Message- From: Arakawa, Steven [mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Steven Arakawa wrote: Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more control over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for content and media type. 33X subfield $3 is for Materials specified, meaning the portion of the resource to which the field applies. The example: 338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term sheet applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it accompanies. Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a. The definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in other fields such as 490. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Steven Arakawa wrote: Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned. I agree that more context in the examples in MARC documentation would make things clearer. But I don't totally agree with you that the fields themselves could be translated ... Rather, I think that they SHOULD be translated (and/or turned into icons, etc.). The intent of the RDA terms in these fields is not to display them to the public, but to identify the attributes in the metadata. Public display should be *based on* the metadata, but not necessarily *literally reproduce* the metadata. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia Sent: October 23, 2012 2:36 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion. But, back to the original question - why do the extra work? Our current gmds are very clear and succinct: dvd, compact disc, comic book; book on cd, etc. Why make people try to figure out a combination of 3 terms when one simple clear statement is already in place and tells them what they need? People in this case being staff who are trying to get items to patrons. Those aren't GMDs as listed in AACR2, but they also shouldn't be stopped in local systems. It's a matter of what field you use. Those terms are actually nearly identical to our item-level collection codes and they have nothing to do with bibliographic fields in our case. The three terms (336-337-338) can be collapsed to 2 terms, and, for display, substitutions can be made (that was the intent of the Joint Steering Committee: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5m100-128.pdf - point 103.8.7). The 337 Media Type value is embedded within the 338 Carrier Type (a videodisc is a video media type), and so it can be dropped from display. Perhaps part of the confusion may have come from the easy mapping of some common GMD values to the 337 Media Type. These are the easy mappings that can be made: 'videorecording' maps to 'video' 'sound recording' maps to 'audio' 'microform' maps to 'microform' whereas combining Content Type and Carrier Type can produce some good results: spoken word on audio disc which can be converted for display to Book on CD. Keeping the 337 around might make sense if finding the most common mappings of 336-337-338 to the GMD is important, but the other two elements in 336 and 338 might be more useful for display in the long run. In other situations more precise codes may need to be called upon. Our format icons are generated from MARC fixed fields, and values deep inside 006, 007 and 008 are called up to devise very specific icons and display terms. That specificity in format details is essentially not possible with the general terms in 336-337-338 so there still needs to be some contemplation of how the whole set of RDA elements can be used to create flexible displays. There are many other RDA elements that get into detailed format characteristics. The assumption for many of these, I think, is that they will ultimately depend on controlled vocabulary, data normalization, or something equivalent to MARC fixed fields to create the kind of the on-the-fly and standardized displays that are in much need now because of the increasing diversity of format types. The key though is to separate in our minds the data elements, and how the examples for values for each element are portrayed in RDA, and what is technically feasible in mapping those element values into different displays. It's clear from RDA that the listed values for many kinds of elements are not intended for ultimate display. For example the qualifiers (work) and (expression) in some relationship designators are not intended for display, but are necessary to create underlying unique values that are semantically consistent with the entities involved. Likewise for the Content-Media-Carrier Type values-- these are based upon the matrix of underlying elements used in the RDA-ONIX Framework and cannot be adjusted at that lower level. They can however be displayed differently. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
You have DVD, Compact Disc and Comic Book as GMD's in 245$h? This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records with these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and you won't generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or LC. The actual standard GMD's are much less useful for patrons in most environments then the ones you use as examples, and indeed the not-so-useful nature of the standard GMD's most of us have is, in my impression, part of what motivated trying to come up with a more reasonable and flexible system for recording form/format data, which was actually a multi-year (10? more?) process/discussion, one product of which is the RDA 3xx vocabularies. On 10/23/2012 2:36 PM, Kathleen Lamantia wrote: Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion. But, back to the original question - why do the extra work? Our current gmds are very clear and succinct: dvd, compact disc, comic book; book on cd, etc. Why make people try to figure out a combination of 3 terms when one simple clear statement is already in place and tells them what they need? People in this case being staff who are trying to get items to patrons. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community -Original Message- From: Arakawa, Steven [mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Steven Arakawa wrote: Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more control over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for content and media type. 33X subfield $3 is for Materials specified, meaning the portion of the resource to which the field applies. The example: 338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term sheet applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it accompanies. Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a. The definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in other fields such as 490. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
You have DVD, Compact Disc and Comic Book as GMD's in 245$h? This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records with these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and you won't generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or LC. Perhaps they're for local use with human catalog users. Quaint, huh? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Yes, sorry, of course these are not AACR2 terms, but we do use them and have for years. In fact, they were carefully chosen before I got here. They convey exactly what is needed to staff. As I said in my earlier post, III's field 30 MAT TYPE generates icons which are for patrons using the public display. The 245|h[gmd] is more for staff who see the Millennium interface while performing searches. However, the 245 also appears in the OPAC as an added piece of information for patrons. I did not explain all this earlier out of respect for the time of list readers. I apologize if there was confusion. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community -Original Message- From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:34 PM To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access Cc: Kathleen Lamantia Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA You have DVD, Compact Disc and Comic Book as GMD's in 245$h? This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records with these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and you won't generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or LC. The actual standard GMD's are much less useful for patrons in most environments then the ones you use as examples, and indeed the not-so-useful nature of the standard GMD's most of us have is, in my impression, part of what motivated trying to come up with a more reasonable and flexible system for recording form/format data, which was actually a multi-year (10? more?) process/discussion, one product of which is the RDA 3xx vocabularies. On 10/23/2012 2:36 PM, Kathleen Lamantia wrote: Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion. But, back to the original question - why do the extra work? Our current gmds are very clear and succinct: dvd, compact disc, comic book; book on cd, etc. Why make people try to figure out a combination of 3 terms when one simple clear statement is already in place and tells them what they need? People in this case being staff who are trying to get items to patrons. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community -Original Message- From: Arakawa, Steven [mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Steven Arakawa wrote: Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more control over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for content and media type. 33X subfield $3 is for Materials specified, meaning the portion of the resource to which the field applies. The example: 338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term sheet applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it accompanies. Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a. The definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in other fields such as 490. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
Mac Elrod wrote: Karen Snow said: ... there is currently no way to code 264_1 $c [date of publication not identified] and 264 _4 $c copyright [insert year] in DtSt and Dates. Thankfully. Having date ... not identified and a date in the same record makes us look very foolish. If nuMARC allows coding such a combintion, I hope it is never applied. It's not simply date ... not identified but date of publication not identified. A copyright date is not a publication date. I have seen many resources over the years bearing copyright statements but no date of publication, and for which the date of publication truly could not be determined (and was known or strongly suspected to be long after the date of copyright). Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Since we do cataloging based on manifestations, different manifestations of the same work have different bib-records. So GMD is more helpful for looking at lists of searching results, for example, a list of titles. When have the same title, you can make a basic decision based on GMD showing after the title. You do not have to click each title to see what it is. But I do not know how the search results would be displayed based on FRBR. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kathleen Lamantia klaman...@starklibrary.org wrote: Yes, sorry, of course these are not AACR2 terms, but we do use them and have for years. In fact, they were carefully chosen before I got here. They convey exactly what is needed to staff. As I said in my earlier post, III's field 30 MAT TYPE generates icons which are for patrons using the public display. The 245|h[gmd] is more for staff who see the Millennium interface while performing searches. However, the 245 also appears in the OPAC as an added piece of information for patrons. I did not explain all this earlier out of respect for the time of list readers. I apologize if there was confusion. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas * Enriching Lives * Creating Community -Original Message- From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:34 PM To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access Cc: Kathleen Lamantia Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA You have DVD, Compact Disc and Comic Book as GMD's in 245$h? This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records with these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and you won't generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or LC. The actual standard GMD's are much less useful for patrons in most environments then the ones you use as examples, and indeed the not-so-useful nature of the standard GMD's most of us have is, in my impression, part of what motivated trying to come up with a more reasonable and flexible system for recording form/format data, which was actually a multi-year (10? more?) process/discussion, one product of which is the RDA 3xx vocabularies. On 10/23/2012 2:36 PM, Kathleen Lamantia wrote: Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion. But, back to the original question - why do the extra work? Our current gmds are very clear and succinct: dvd, compact disc, comic book; book on cd, etc. Why make people try to figure out a combination of 3 terms when one simple clear statement is already in place and tells them what they need? People in this case being staff who are trying to get items to patrons. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas * Enriching Lives * Creating Community -Original Message- From: Arakawa, Steven [mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Steven Arakawa wrote: Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more control over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for content and media type. 33X subfield $3 is for Materials specified, meaning the portion of the resource to which the field applies. The example: 338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term sheet applies to the liner
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
On 23/10/2012 19:45, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip Thomas Brenndorfer said: Perhaps the biggest frustration I get in these discussion is the conflation of issues. A discussion of controlled vocabulary terms shouldn't be bogged down by display issues. Display issues? The function of 245$h or 33X would seem to me to facilitate discovery of desired resources. It would seem to me that how they are displayed is central to their serving their purpose. The major problems we see with 33X is that some terms are too long for convenient display, are redundant, or are obscure (e,g,,tactile three dimensional object; object would suffice). Relator terms have the same problems. It is not necessary to include film or sound film in relator terms; it is clear from the record what is directed or composed; director or composer would suffice. /snip This has turned into an interesting thread. In an ideal world, display *can* be rather unimportant so long as the information is input consistently. Information that is consistent in a computer can display in almost any way someone would want. So, if the text says mediated or whatever is beside the point. It is similar to arguing whether a computer code in the 008 field should be 1 9 z or §. It really doesn't matter. It's only a code. The moment inconsistency is introduced, the task of display becomes far more complex. So for me, the question of what a cataloger actually enters into a 33x field is rather unimportant: the computer can display it--or not--however you want. Yet, we should not ignore that this also concerns consistency with what is in the *totality* of the database, that is: what the public works with every day--not only the newest records--and this in turn brings up the issue of the incorrectly termed legacy data. This however, is a topic few catalogers seem to want to discuss, although the public will see it in *every single search* until the end of time. Not a minor concern, I think. At the same time, from a theoretical point of view, the traditional GMDs really have conflated different aspects of an item, and this can be demonstrated clearly, as has been shown with particular clarity in the examples of [electronic resource]. I am sure we have all wrestled with this in our own practice. An auxiliary point is the idea of turning our text into data. Here, we have an assumption that in the linked data universe, people will *not* be looking at entire records, so that someone will not even be able to examine an entire record to learn that the relationship of John Huston to Moby Dick is that he was director and not an actor. They may only see the name (perhaps through a URI) John Huston. If the other fields of a record are not readily seen because of linked data, then it can be argued that the information for roles (or whatever) must be carried within the data, itself (in this case, along with John Huston's heading). In my own opinion, the real question is: is all of this a problem only from the theoretical point of view, or is it a problem for the actual public? Unfortunately, we don't have any research and have only anecdotal evidence. My experience has shown that fewer and fewer people even understand what it means to search by author, even less by subject, and with very few exceptions, a search by title, other than a few major keywords of the item, is too weird for them even to imagine. To focus on practical considerations, and going back to a recent discussion on Autocat discussing Eric Miller's talk at LC about the new Bibliographic Framework, he said that what needs to be made is something *simple* because if what catalogers make is too complicated, no web master will ever be able to implement it. (I also wonder if regular catalogers can either) His advice makes perfect sense to me. RDA is *anything but* simple. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: October 23, 2012 5:14 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA My experience has shown that fewer and fewer people even understand what it means to search by author, even less by subject, and with very few exceptions, a search by title, other than a few major keywords of the item, is too weird for them even to imagine. To focus on practical considerations, and going back to a recent discussion on Autocat discussing Eric Miller's talk at LC about the new Bibliographic Framework, he said that what needs to be made is something *simple* because if what catalogers make is too complicated, no web master will ever be able to implement it. (I also wonder if regular catalogers can either) His advice makes perfect sense to me. RDA is *anything but* simple. Contradicted by the RDA examples that are compared side-by-side with MARC: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/examples/MARC For display and for data input, assuming these RDA examples will be comparable to actual display and input mechanisms, the RDA method appears much simpler. There are no punctuation rules to worry about separating elements. There are clear demarcations between transcribed elements and recorded elements. There is some added redundancy (such as with authorized access point for the work and Creator having the same Person involved), but these serve to illuminate what entities are being presented and how data elements logically flow together, which can facilitate better workforms and machine processing. Overall, much simpler. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
Kevin Randall said:
It's not simply date ... not identified but date of publication
not identified. A copyright date is not a publication date. I have
seen many resources over the years bearing copyright statements but
no date of publication ...
That's what the question mark after the year before the bracket is
for, or even a hyphen or two. The bracketed year takes less space and
is more informative that that long phrase, which is also unsuitable
for international use, or in a bilingual country such as Canada.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 264 and local distributors
Ben posted:
Piscataway, NJ : $b Transactions Publishers, Rutgers University, $c [=
2012] $3 Copies distributed in North America
Perhaps we should ask MARBI for 264 $z Public note. Ooops, MARBI is gone.
How about:
264 2 $aPiscataway, NJ : $b[Distributed in North America by] Transactions
Publishers, Rutgers University, $c[2012]
Some system may label 264 2 as Distributor, in which case a shorter
phrase could be used.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
The focus is on controlled terms and data normalization. That's what
data management is about.
But why use poor terminology which requires translation for display?
Why not use succinct understandable terms to begin with?
Smaller libraries will have little option but to display the data as
is, and often in field tag order. Even where translation and place of
display mapping is possible for the public, the cataloguer would
probably not have an interface which displays and allows entry of
sensible terms.
What I see in TLC's ITS is the RDA awful terminology, after collation.
Other for a piece of equipment? How helpful is that? To what would
you translate it, since more than equipment would be other?
Data normalization does not excuse poor terminology nor inexactness.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Relator terms vs. codes
Library and Archives Canada have said that they are intending to use
$4 relator codes rather than $e relator terms, because of their
bilingual nature.
The advantage of codes over terms, is that the local system could
substitute patron friendly terms, as opposed to the lengthly, often
redundant, RDA relator phrases (it is obvious what is directed or
composed in a record for a DVD). The disadvantage for SLC is that not
all our clients have systems capable of substituting terms for codes.
Relator codes have been added to MRI 21:00.
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
A free account is required to view. (The MRIs allow AACR2 to be used
in creating RDA compatible records.)
Like AACR2, and unlike Ms Fritz' helful binder, MARC coding is not
usually given in MRIs.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Preferred title of manifestation(Was: Re:Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates)
Hi Do we need a Preferred Title of Manifestation or Authorised Access Point for Manifestation to connect the manifestation to other Group 1 entities? Where are the rules in RDA? Regards Henry On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edu wrote: Gene Fieg wrote: Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual role, why not split it? Currently, the 245 is description and access point. Should we split them? We already do this, though inconsistently, through uniform titles/preferred title of the work, yes? Karen Karen Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library Information Science Dominican University 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305 ks...@dom.edumailto:ks...@dom.edu 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax)
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Whatever field(s) and subfield(s) we choose to display in the 1st line for title display, search and discovery are critical for users. Re-Packing SMD (special material designation) from meaningful 33X into 245$h [GMD] is logical based on demo records shared by Steven Arakawa from Yale Univ. Library if such choices enable a user's task completion for the following: 1) playing Jazz music via mp3 audio or mp4 video player such as iPod; 2) viewing online map via browser; 3) reading eBook via eBook Reader such as Kindle Fire, etc. So far, the discussions are very intriguing and rich. But whatever we do, the 1st line has to be clear to the user at least which devices, browsers, eReaders to be invoked for the user's task completion, e.g. playing, viewing, reading, etc. in addition to transcribing the title proper as it appears. The creative use of content type and media type based on the demos for music, online map, and ebook is sense-making as well, particularly if we look at them via index definition of the title display and search. It's another story for discovery. At least, they are registered as: 1) RDA Content Type, http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/45.html; 2) RDA Media Type, http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/37.html; 3) RDA Carrier Type, http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/46.html Thanks a lot for sharing them!!! Amanda Xu Sent from my iPhone On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edu wrote: We don't display the new 3xx fields in our OPAC either; I've always thought it was obvious from the controlled, technical vocabulary used in $a $2 that 336-338 $a and $2 were not intended for display. However, in our system the fields are keyword indexed. In the current and near future catalog, they should be relatively easy to apply to keyword filters running in the background. Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more control over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for content and media type. The MARC Authorities example 338 ## $asheet$2rdacarrier$3liner notes Other possibilities? (throwing these out for consideration). At your next cataloger cocktail party, think up your own opac labels and index displays! For jazz performance recordings on an Ipod 336 ## $aperformed music$2rdacontent$3jazz 337 ## $aaudio$2rdamedia$3mp3 audio 338 ## $aother$2rdacarrier$3Ipod Public labels in record display: Format: jazz Access via: mp3 audio On: Ipod Index display: authortitle icon of loudspeaker used in Windows tray (Ipod) term pulled from 338 $3 For an online map: 336 ## $acartographic image$2rdacontent$3e-map 337 ## $acomputer$2rdamedia$3any university computer 338 ## $aonline resource$2rdacarrier$3Internet website Public labels: Format: e-map Access via: any university computer On: Internet website Index display: authortitleicon of globe(Internet website) For an e-book: 336 ## $atext$2rdacontent$3e-book 337 ## $acomputer$rdamedia$3e-reader 338 ## $acomputer card$2rdacarrier$3Kindle Public labels: Format: e-book Access via: e-reader On: Kindle Index display: authortitleicon of book(Kindle) Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:02 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Or, you can just keep it locally, which is what we plan to do. When staff have a patron standing in front of them, or on the phone, seeking help, they use the #h [gmd] description to quickly distinguish which type of material is wanted by the patron. That is supposed to be the basis of the entire FRBR/RDA changeover. If I told them they had to read 336, 337 and 338 to determine item type, especially once I showed them the terms used (oh yes and and 'unmediated text' is a book) they would troop down to Tech Services en masse and ask me if I had lost my mind. In the OPAC, III's field 30 Mat Type generates an a very specific icon, so we are okay there. We are currently suppressing the 3xxs in the public display. They take up too much room in the display because of where they fall, and they convey no useful information to searchers. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Thomas said:
How about not jamming unrelated data into a single element to drive
display needs.
The GMD has its own MARC21 subfield, thus not jammed. It is where it
is needed a early warning, as suggested by Margaret Mann (her example
was literary genre when not clear from the title).
There are SEVERAL data elements to choose from and to work with.
If one has a ILS capable of such. We are creating a great divide
among libraries.
Each RDA Content and Carrier term is built out of subordinate
elements in the RDA-ONIX Framework.
Some equipment has content (e-readers, e-players, lap-tops, etc.) for
which the RDA content terms work (text, performed music, computer
program). A microfiche reader lacks content, so a null value is
needed.
Since equipment is used directly, the term fits quite well under
unmediated. It is certainly more exact than object or other.
Yes, SMD (aka unit name) might serve as early warning. Perhaps in
nuMARC it might have it's own distinct subfield code, so that it could
be mapped to after title proper,r or at head of other data (as
suggested by ISBD Area 0), if one has an ILS which can do that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
