Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Julie, The RDA cutover date applies only to authority records. PCC libraries may continue to describe resources after March 31 using AACR2, but any new name authorities created for the LC/NACO Authority File must be formulated according to RDA instructions. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Julie Moore wrote: Please excuse the cross-posting ... Dear All, It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338 as a replacement for the GMD. I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really do not want to do that.) I know that some people are continuing to catalog using AACR2 and adding in the RDA fields, creating a hybrid record ... mainly so that they can keep the GMD ... until some more satisfactory solution comes about. (I'd rather not do that, either.) Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!) Cheers, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Julie,
We have been doing Mac's option 1 (don't display 33x fields, do
generate an icon, based on fixed field values), and it seems quite
satisfactory. We're an Innovative library. The icons appear on browse
summary screens to the side of the record, and, on full-display in the top
right corner, after the title. It seems to work.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:57 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Julie Moore asked:
Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
The best option we have seen are icons based on fixed fields, and
suppressing 33X from display.
Next best, I think, is displaying [338 : 336] at end of title proper
(as per the MRIs), or at head of all other data (as per ISBD Area 0).
If either of these is done, longer phrases should be truncated, e.g.,
just display tactile, cartographic, moving image. You might
consider suppressing [volume : text].
So far, most of our clients are opting to have GMD inserted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Has anyone managed to do this with SirsiDynix Symphony?
Thanks for advice
Sheila
Sheila Scott (Cataloguer)
The Georgina Scott Sutherland Library
Robert Gordon University
Garthdee Road
Aberdeen
AB10 7QE
email : s.sc...@rgu.ac.ukmailto:s.sc...@rgu.ac.uk
Tel : 01224 263461
For the latest library news visit our blog: Library
Mattershttp://blogs.rgu.ac.uk/
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adger Williams
Sent: 31 January 2013 12:40
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Julie,
We have been doing Mac's option 1 (don't display 33x fields, do generate an
icon, based on fixed field values), and it seems quite satisfactory. We're an
Innovative library. The icons appear on browse summary screens to the side of
the record, and, on full-display in the top right corner, after the title. It
seems to work.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:57 PM, J. McRee Elrod
m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Julie Moore asked:
Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
The best option we have seen are icons based on fixed fields, and
suppressing 33X from display.
Next best, I think, is displaying [338 : 336] at end of title proper
(as per the MRIs), or at head of all other data (as per ISBD Area 0).
If either of these is done, longer phrases should be truncated, e.g.,
just display tactile, cartographic, moving image. You might
consider suppressing [volume : text].
So far, most of our clients are opting to have GMD inserted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edumailto:awilli...@colgate.edu
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Maildistiller cloud email
security - click
herehttps://console.maildistiller.com/index01.php?mod_id=11mod_option=logitemmid=409146517rid=109709322report=1
to report this email as spam.
Robert Gordon University is The Sunday Times Best Modern University in the UK
2012
Robert Gordon University, a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC
013781.
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended
recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all
copies and inform the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented
in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of Robert Gordon University. Thank you.
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
We will do the same, and, we will add gmd back in manually to the 245|h. I am
not sure that part will continue, but staff will be very unhappy if we
discontinue them. GMD in 245|h is used very heavily by circ staff when
assisting patrons. We are also a III library, so icons work for the public
display, but do not show in the Millennium view which staff use. Those
miserable 3xx fields convey no comprehensible information to staff.
[cid:image003.png@01CDFF8D.A46A3D70]
Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
From: Adger Williams [mailto:awilli...@colgate.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:40 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Julie,
We have been doing Mac's option 1 (don't display 33x fields, do generate an
icon, based on fixed field values), and it seems quite satisfactory. We're an
Innovative library. The icons appear on browse summary screens to the side of
the record, and, on full-display in the top right corner, after the title. It
seems to work.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:57 PM, J. McRee Elrod
m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Julie Moore asked:
Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
The best option we have seen are icons based on fixed fields, and
suppressing 33X from display.
Next best, I think, is displaying [338 : 336] at end of title proper
(as per the MRIs), or at head of all other data (as per ISBD Area 0).
If either of these is done, longer phrases should be truncated, e.g.,
just display tactile, cartographic, moving image. You might
consider suppressing [volume : text].
So far, most of our clients are opting to have GMD inserted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edumailto:awilli...@colgate.edu
inline: image003.png
Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Thanks for your take on this question, Mac!
Rick
-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: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Rich McRae asked:
When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate
mani= festations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that
two bibliogr= aphic records should be created? ...
That is my understanding, just as it was mandated by AACR2. So far, so far as
I know, there has been no LCPS subverting that as the LCRI subverted AACR2.
If/when Bibframe has expression records, an expression record might contain
both. But we are still doing manifestation records.
You can refer to the alternate form in 530 (which has $u), in 776, and/or 856 1
(version of resource) $u. but in my view that does not replace the need for two
records due to AACR2's GMD or RDA's media terms, not to mention fixed fields.
Most of our clients prefer 530, although the PN e-book standard calls for 776.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Has anyone using Voyager decided to do this? That is, add back 245/ $h gmd in
the local system? I agree that the 336, 337, 338 don’t need to be viewable
which ours are not.
Thanks.
Carolyn Kadri
Special Collections Cataloger
University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, TX 76019
817-272-7153
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:33 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
We will do the same, and, we will add gmd back in manually to the 245|h. I am
not sure that part will continue, but staff will be very unhappy if we
discontinue them. GMD in 245|h is used very heavily by circ staff when
assisting patrons. We are also a III library, so icons work for the public
display, but do not show in the Millennium view which staff use. Those
miserable 3xx fields convey no comprehensible information to staff.
[cid:image001.png@01CDFF9B.80049490]
Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
From: Adger Williams [mailto:awilli...@colgate.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:40 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Julie,
We have been doing Mac's option 1 (don't display 33x fields, do generate an
icon, based on fixed field values), and it seems quite satisfactory. We're an
Innovative library. The icons appear on browse summary screens to the side of
the record, and, on full-display in the top right corner, after the title. It
seems to work.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:57 PM, J. McRee Elrod
m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Julie Moore asked:
Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
The best option we have seen are icons based on fixed fields, and
suppressing 33X from display.
Next best, I think, is displaying [338 : 336] at end of title proper
(as per the MRIs), or at head of all other data (as per ISBD Area 0).
If either of these is done, longer phrases should be truncated, e.g.,
just display tactile, cartographic, moving image. You might
consider suppressing [volume : text].
So far, most of our clients are opting to have GMD inserted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edumailto:awilli...@colgate.edu
inline: image001.png
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
[I'm posting the same thing here that I posted on AUTOCAT in response to
this question.]
I'll be frank...when I was at the University of Pennsylvania we redesigned
the OPAC. We removed the GMD entirely from the results lists. The only
place you could view it was in the full record view. AND NO ONE NOTICED. We
received no complaints about it's absence.
Why?
We replaced the use of the GMD, which is general and lacks specificity
(most notably with the [electronic resource] that applies to multiple
different formats), with the use of facets and icons.
Here at Georgetown we have *no* intention of re-creating the GMD or a
GMD-substitute. Instead, we will be using format icons based on a
combination of coding (LDR, 008, 007, 006, locations, etc.). There is no
one-to-one relationship between the 33x fields and the GMD to begin with,
nor are the 33x fields options comprehensive (there are notable formats
missing such as a way to separate unpublished textual manuscripts from
published texts), which is why creating the icons from coding is
preferable. Not to mention that using a combination of codes is more
reliable and specific than the 33x fields.
So STOP focusing on the GMD. Find another solution that's actually *useful*
and *specific* for users and catalogers alike. Personally as a cataloger I
*hate* the GMD because it is pretty much useless for most of the materials
I deal with (ex.: a website and a USB drive and a streaming video ALL get
electronic resource, rendering it useless for my purposes when it comes to
limiting).
Given my past and current experience, icons generated from coding have
received nothing but positive responses from users and public services
librarians alike.
Thanks,
-Shana
*
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
Georgetown University Library
37th and O Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC 20057
(202) 687-3356
sm2...@georgetown.edu
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Kadri, Carolyn J ka...@uta.edu wrote:
Has anyone using Voyager decided to do this? That is, add back 245/ $h
gmd in the local system? I agree that the 336, 337, 338 don’t need to be
viewable which ours are not.
** **
Thanks.
** **
Carolyn Kadri
Special Collections Cataloger
University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, TX 76019
817-272-7153
** **
*From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Kathleen Lamantia
*Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:33 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
** **
We will do the same, and, we will add gmd back in manually to the 245|h.
I am not sure that part will continue, but staff will be very unhappy if we
discontinue them. GMD in 245|h is used very heavily by circ staff when
assisting patrons. We are also a III library, so icons work for the public
display, but do not show in the Millennium view which staff use. Those
miserable 3xx fields convey no comprehensible information to staff.
** **
[image: SA vcard logo]
Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
** **
*From:* Adger Williams [mailto:awilli...@colgate.eduawilli...@colgate.edu]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:40 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
** **
Julie,
We have been doing Mac's option 1 (don't display 33x fields, do
generate an icon, based on fixed field values), and it seems quite
satisfactory. We're an Innovative library. The icons appear on browse
summary screens to the side of the record, and, on full-display in the top
right corner, after the title. It seems to work.
** **
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:57 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:***
*
Julie Moore asked:
Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
The best option we have seen are icons based on fixed fields, and
suppressing 33X from display.
Next best, I think, is displaying [338 : 336] at end of title proper
(as per the MRIs), or at head of all other data (as per ISBD Area 0).
If either of these is done, longer phrases should be truncated, e.g.,
just display tactile, cartographic, moving image. You might
consider suppressing [volume : text].
So far, most of our clients are opting to have GMD inserted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
While this is correct, it is notable that the Library of Congress is switching all bibliographic work over to RDA on the same date. Per Beacher Wiggins at the RDA Update Forum at ALA Midwinter this past weekend: everything coming out of LoC will follow RDA (they will ensure access points in copy are RDA, but they are not recataloging/recoding existing bib records). The other national libraries (Agriculture, Medicine) are targeting the same time frame for bibliographic implementation. Thanks, -Shana * Shana L. McDanold Head, Metadata Services Georgetown University Library 37th and O Streets, N.W. Washington, DC 20057 (202) 687-3356 sm2...@georgetown.edu On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: Julie, The RDA cutover date applies only to authority records. PCC libraries may continue to describe resources after March 31 using AACR2, but any new name authorities created for the LC/NACO Authority File must be formulated according to RDA instructions. ^^** Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Julie Moore wrote: Please excuse the cross-posting ... Dear All, It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338 as a replacement for the GMD. I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really do not want to do that.) I know that some people are continuing to catalog using AACR2 and adding in the RDA fields, creating a hybrid record ... mainly so that they can keep the GMD ... until some more satisfactory solution comes about. (I'd rather not do that, either.) Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!) Cheers, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie
Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I'm curious if people who oppose the use of t (pub date/copyright date) instead of s (pub date only) in the fixed fields are having problems getting their systems to parse the data correctly or if it just looks funny (redundant) to them because, like all of us, their frame of reference is AACR2, which treats (or ignores) copyright statements based on their relationship to publication date. The MARC definition is pretty unambiguous that when 008/byte 06 is set to t, 008/bytes 07-10 represent publication date and 008/bytes 11-14 represent copyright date, and I should think any MARC-compliant ILS would be aware of that and index it appropriately. Certainly it is a good question whether the date fixed field is the best place to recording copyright dates in a machine actionable way; but that is really an issue of how the MARC format is designed and implemented. Under AACR2 copyright date was only recorded when it differed from publication date, or when publication date was unavailable. That is, its function under AACR2 was to assist in the identification of the piece. Under RDA, copyright is treated as a separate data element (date associated with a claim of protection under copyright or a similar regime, RDA 2.11), one that is not necessarily related to date of publication/distribution/manufacture. That is, it is metadata that informs users about what rights have been asserted over a document, and not just metadata that assists in identifying it. To be sure, when date of publication/manufacture/distribution cannot be found, it continues to function as a reasonable facsimile for publication date. Hence the lengthy commentary in the LC/PCC PS to 2.8.6.6. So when we have only a copyright date we can copy that date and put it in brackets (as supplied data) in the 264:x1:$c. But the statement of rights, if I understand RDA correctly, should always be recorded (it is designated a core element) if it is available on the source(s) of information. I think the way RDA presents this is unfortunate and bound to lead to or perpetuate the confusion that surrounds copyright vs publication date. Its placement in the instructions directly adjacent to instructions for recording publication information, suggests that copyright is more or less the same as publication date, as it was under AACR2. Moreover I think they should have called this element copyright statement not copyright date, as the latter leads to confusion (if the element is copyright date why include the © character? what about other similar regimes such as legal deposit, etc.?) Nevertheless the practice of recording copyright data separately--even when it is the same as publication date--makes logical sense even though it looks funny and perhaps excessive to catalogers (and probably some members of the public as well). It is really, I might suggest, an element that supports the obtain function, broadly speaking (as copyright, or other assertions of rights by creators, etc., may determine what someone can do with the material, and the conditions under which agencies may make material available to the public) more than the find and identify functions. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:41 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question Good point, Nancy, i didn't remember that the phonogram date was also in that field, which you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a copyright date without the symbol or words to that effect. greta - Original Message - From: Nancy Lorimer nlori...@stanford.edu To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Cc: Greta de Groat gdegr...@stanford.edu Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:50:06 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I will add one thing to Greta's very clear explanation. While the field explicitly states that this is a copyright date, it does not state what type of copyright date is being recorded. There are two types of copyright date--copyright for text (the (c) date) and the phonogram copyright date (the (p) date), which is the copyright for recorded sound. Again, these are two different things, and both may appear on the same item (and be different). I remember vaguely that when the field was first being created, there was some talk of separating the symbol and the date, but in the end they were left together in one field. Nancy On 1/30/2013 9:40 AM, Greta de Groat wrote: Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation. Steven is right,
Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Just a correction about the copyright date in RDA (2.11) - it is a core element only if neither the date of publication nor the date of distribution is identified. A note on copyright date is covered in 2.20.10. At 2.11.1.1, the scope of a copyright date in RDA is a date associated with a claim of protection under copyright or a similar regime. Copyright date includes phonogram dates (i.e., dates associated with claims of protection for sound recordings). This is completely separate from a publication date, distribution date, manufacture date. The use of a copyright date as a best guess for any of those other dates (particularly publication date) is from practice, not from RDA. When a publication date is not identified in the resource, RDA says (2.8.6.6) to supply the date or approximate date of publication and, when that is not possible, to use the standard phrase 'date of publication not identified'. - Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: I'm curious if people who oppose the use of t (pub date/copyright date) instead of s (pub date only) in the fixed fields are having problems getting their systems to parse the data correctly or if it just looks funny (redundant) to them because, like all of us, their frame of reference is AACR2, which treats (or ignores) copyright statements based on their relationship to publication date. The MARC definition is pretty unambiguous that when 008/byte 06 is set to t, 008/bytes 07-10 represent publication date and 008/bytes 11-14 represent copyright date, and I should think any MARC-compliant ILS would be aware of that and index it appropriately. Certainly it is a good question whether the date fixed field is the best place to recording copyright dates in a machine actionable way; but that is really an issue of how the MARC format is designed and implemented. Under AACR2 copyright date was only recorded when it differed from publication date, or when publication date was unavailable. That is, its function under AACR2 was to assist in the identification of the piece. Under RDA, copyright is treated as a separate data element (date associated with a claim of protection under copyright or a similar regime, RDA 2.11), one that is not necessarily related to date of publication/distribution/manufacture. That is, it is metadata that informs users about what rights have been asserted over a document, and not just metadata that assists in identifying it. To be sure, when date of publication/manufacture/distribution cannot be found, it continues to function as a reasonable facsimile for publication date. Hence the lengthy commentary in the LC/PCC PS to 2.8.6.6. So when we have only a copyright date we can copy that date and put it in brackets (as supplied data) in the 264:x1:$c. But the statement of rights, if I understand RDA correctly, should always be recorded (it is designated a core element) if it is available on the source(s) of information. I think the way RDA presents this is unfortunate and bound to lead to or perpetuate the confusion that surrounds copyright vs publication date. Its placement in the instructions directly adjacent to instructions for recording publication information, suggests that copyright is more or less the same as publication date, as it was under AACR2. Moreover I think they should have called this element copyright statement not copyright date, as the latter leads to confusion (if the element is copyright date why include the © character? what about other similar regimes such as legal deposit, etc.?) Nevertheless the practice of recording copyright data separately--even when it is the same as publication date--makes logical sense even though it looks funny and perhaps excessive to catalogers (and probably some members of the public as well). It is really, I might suggest, an element that supports the obtain function, broadly speaking (as copyright, or other assertions of rights by creators, etc., may determine what someone can do with the material, and the conditions under which agencies may make material available to the public) more than the find and identify functions. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:41 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question Good point, Nancy, i didn't remember that the phonogram date was also in that field, which you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a copyright date without the symbol or words to that effect. greta - Original Message - From: Nancy Lorimer
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
I would not suggest using GMD. The addition of GMD is an extra work for
catalogers. It is also a problem for staff training, struggling between two
cataloging rules.
OCLC policy states that they keep GMD for three years. It seems to be a
transition time. GMD apparently is not under maintenance and update. One
day you may have to get rid of them.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Goldfarb, Kathie kgoldf...@com.eduwrote:
I am planning on adding a $h. In our public record, we do have icons that
provide some description, but, maybe I am too old, but until they have been
used for awhile, the icons are not always obvious to me. Has anyone found
a good icon for streaming media? I am still looking for that.
** **
Of more importance is the view on the tech side, in the index screens.
When I am searching a specific title, I may need to know, without accessing
each record, whether it is the video recording, electronic recourse or
book.
** **
kathie
** **
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202
** **
P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
** **
** **
*From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Kadri, Carolyn J
*Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:13 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
** **
Has anyone using Voyager decided to do this? That is, add back 245/ $h
gmd in the local system? I agree that the 336, 337, 338 don’t need to be
viewable which ours are not.
** **
Thanks.
** **
Carolyn Kadri
Special Collections Cataloger
University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, TX 76019
817-272-7153
** **
*From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On
Behalf Of *Kathleen Lamantia
*Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:33 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
** **
We will do the same, and, we will add gmd back in manually to the 245|h.
I am not sure that part will continue, but staff will be very unhappy if we
discontinue them. GMD in 245|h is used very heavily by circ staff when
assisting patrons. We are also a III library, so icons work for the public
display, but do not show in the Millennium view which staff use. Those
miserable 3xx fields convey no comprehensible information to staff.
** **
[image: SA vcard logo]
Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
** **
*From:* Adger Williams [mailto:awilli...@colgate.eduawilli...@colgate.edu]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:40 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
** **
Julie,
We have been doing Mac's option 1 (don't display 33x fields, do
generate an icon, based on fixed field values), and it seems quite
satisfactory. We're an Innovative library. The icons appear on browse
summary screens to the side of the record, and, on full-display in the top
right corner, after the title. It seems to work.
** **
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:57 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:***
*
Julie Moore asked:
Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
The best option we have seen are icons based on fixed fields, and
suppressing 33X from display.
Next best, I think, is displaying [338 : 336] at end of title proper
(as per the MRIs), or at head of all other data (as per ISBD Area 0).
If either of these is done, longer phrases should be truncated, e.g.,
just display tactile, cartographic, moving image. You might
consider suppressing [volume : text].
So far, most of our clients are opting to have GMD inserted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
inline: image001.png
[RDA-L] UNSUBSCRIBE
Thanks, Anne Dalesandro
Re: [RDA-L] Carrier type Flipchart
Many thanks to Benjamin, John and Daniel for the explanation. I've never come across something like this in Germany, and will have to find out whether there is a special German term for it (as the word Flipchart in German is really only used for the easel and whiteboard). It still bothers me a bit to have an unmediated carrier type for something as specialized as this (especially if you compare it with the huge range of object). By the way, this got me wondering about wall calendars (the typical ones with one image per month). They often have a spiral binding, which makes them very similar in form to those classroom flipcharts. Only they are not designed for use on an easel, as the RDA glossary says, but for hanging on a wall. So I assume flipchart wouldn't be suitable, and you'd have to use volume instead (RDA glossary: One or more sheets bound or fastened together to form a single unit). It's really amazing how complicated assigning carrier types can get... One should think that at least the unmediated carrier types would be straightforward. Heidrun On 30.01.2013 22:06, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote I think it refers to a type of childrens' (or educational) resource that is published and intended to be used in the classroom. E.g.: http://www.staples.com/Calendar-Time-Sing-Along-Flip-Chart-and-CD/product_753900?cid=PS:GooglePLAs:753900KPID=753900 Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:45 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Carrier type Flipchart In our regional cataloging experts group, we were dicussing RDA carrier types yesterday. We were completely mystified why flip charts warrant a carrier type of their own (flipchart). We found it very hard to imagine any library or other institution collecting flip charts, in the first place. Stretching our imagination, we could picture a collection of paper sheets which had before been used on a flip chart - but these should then simply get the data carrier sheet, shouldn't they? And if a library really wanted to collect the flip charts themselves (for us, that would mean whiteboards on an easel) - wouldn't that fall under object? I assume that there is a simple solution to this puzzle. Probably it's just some sort of misunderstanding, either due to language or cultural differences. So I wonder: What exactly is meant by flipchart in this respect, and how are flip charts used in Angloamerican countries? The flip charts we were thinking of look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_chart We use the term for the whole device, i.e. the easel and the whiteboard with its mechanism for holding paper sheets. The RDA glossary defines flipchart as hinging device holding two or more sheets designed for use on an easel, which is perhaps not exactly the same. Thanks for your help. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] TR: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote : I'm curious if people who oppose the use of t (pub date/copyright date) instead of s (pub date only) in the fixed fields are having problems getting their systems to parse the data correctly or if it just looks funny (redundant) to them because, like all of us, their frame of reference is AACR2, which treats (or ignores) copyright statements based on their relationship to publication date. I oppose the use of t instead of s in the 008/06 because it is not consistent with the principle already applied for code p. As a music cataloguer, I'm used to see recordings that are recorded in the same year that they are released. Because two different types of dates are involved, code p (Date of distribution/release/issue and production/recording session) could theoretically be applicable but the MARC documentation explicitly says that code p is used only when the two dates are different. Dates of recording are important to music users and under both AACR2 and RDA, they are given in the record (field 518 and/or 033) even if they are identical to another date already recorded, such as a publication date or a copyright date. Yet, it was felt that recording the date only once in field 008 was sufficient and that code s should be used in these situations. I fail to see why copyright dates should be treated differently than dates of recording as far as MARC coding is concerned. This difference is annoying because music cataloguers (and video cataloguer too) will have to remember different practices depending on the types of dates encountered. This is the type of useless distinctions that I was hoping RDA would reduce if not eliminate, not increase. Daniel Paradis Bibliothécaire Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721 Télécopieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.ca -Message d'origine- De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Benjamin A Abrahamse Envoyé : 31 janvier 2013 12:59 À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I'm curious if people who oppose the use of t (pub date/copyright date) instead of s (pub date only) in the fixed fields are having problems getting their systems to parse the data correctly or if it just looks funny (redundant) to them because, like all of us, their frame of reference is AACR2, which treats (or ignores) copyright statements based on their relationship to publication date. The MARC definition is pretty unambiguous that when 008/byte 06 is set to t, 008/bytes 07-10 represent publication date and 008/bytes 11-14 represent copyright date, and I should think any MARC-compliant ILS would be aware of that and index it appropriately. Certainly it is a good question whether the date fixed field is the best place to recording copyright dates in a machine actionable way; but that is really an issue of how the MARC format is designed and implemented. Under AACR2 copyright date was only recorded when it differed from publication date, or when publication date was unavailable. That is, its function under AACR2 was to assist in the identification of the piece. Under RDA, copyright is treated as a separate data element (date associated with a claim of protection under copyright or a similar regime, RDA 2.11), one that is not necessarily related to date of publication/distribution/manufacture. That is, it is metadata that informs users about what rights have been asserted over a document, and not just metadata that assists in identifying it. To be sure, when date of publication/manufacture/distribution cannot be found, it continues to function as a reasonable facsimile for publication date. Hence the lengthy commentary in the LC/PCC PS to 2.8.6.6. So when we have only a copyright date we can copy that date and put it in brackets (as supplied data) in the 264:x1:$c. But the statement of rights, if I understand RDA correctly, should always be recorded (it is designated a core element) if it is available on the source(s) of information. I think the way RDA presents this is unfortunate and bound to lead to or perpetuate the confusion that surrounds copyright vs publication date. Its placement in the instructions directly adjacent to instructions for recording publication information, suggests that copyright is more or less the same as publication date, as it was under AACR2. Moreover I think they should have called this element copyright statement not copyright date, as the latter leads to confusion (if the element is copyright date why include the © character? what about other similar regimes such as legal deposit, etc.?) Nevertheless the practice of recording copyright data
[RDA-L] Clarification of LC's RDA implementation RE: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Responding on behalf of the Library of Congress to clarify statements made at recent ALA meetings. All LC authorities will be created using RDA beginning on March 31, but units like NUCMC and Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division, etc. will continue to create bibliographic records using their current non-AACR2 standards. It should also be clarified that NAL is implementing RDA for Authorities on March 31, but as of last Friday (25 Jan. 2013) had not announced an implementation date for bibliographic records. Sincere apologies for any confusion caused by these remarks made at ALA. Ana Lupe Cristán Library of Congress Policy and Standards Division 101 Independence Ave. Washington, DC 20540-4305 Tel. +1.202.707.7921 fax +1.202.707.6629 Email: a...@loc.govmailto:a...@loc.gov [cid:image003.jpg@01CDFFCB.FA51EF10] From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shana McDanold Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:01 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited While this is correct, it is notable that the Library of Congress is switching all bibliographic work over to RDA on the same date. Per Beacher Wiggins at the RDA Update Forum at ALA Midwinter this past weekend: everything coming out of LoC will follow RDA (they will ensure access points in copy are RDA, but they are not recataloging/recoding existing bib records). The other national libraries (Agriculture, Medicine) are targeting the same time frame for bibliographic implementation. Thanks, -Shana * Shana L. McDanold Head, Metadata Services Georgetown University Library 37th and O Streets, N.W. Washington, DC 20057 (202) 687-3356 sm2...@georgetown.edumailto:sm2...@georgetown.edu On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edumailto:asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: Julie, The RDA cutover date applies only to authority records. PCC libraries may continue to describe resources after March 31 using AACR2, but any new name authorities created for the LC/NACO Authority File must be formulated according to RDA instructions. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409tel:%28206%29%20543-8409 (206) 685-8782tel:%28206%29%20685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edumailto:asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Julie Moore wrote: Please excuse the cross-posting ... Dear All, It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338 as a replacement for the GMD. I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really do not want to do that.) I know that some people are continuing to catalog using AACR2 and adding in the RDA fields, creating a hybrid record ... mainly so that they can keep the GMD ... until some more satisfactory solution comes about. (I'd rather not do that, either.) Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!) Cheers, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.commailto:julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813tel:559-278-5813 Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves James Matthew Barrie inline: image003.jpg
[RDA-L] Position announcement: Spanish Language Cataloger, University of Miami Libraries
---Apologies for cross-posting--- Spanish Language Cataloger (Librarian Assistant/Associate Professor) The University of Miami Librarieshttp://library.miami.edu/ seek a creative, enthusiastic professional for the position of Spanish Language Cataloger. This position will join a newly hired team of professionals to support the discovery of and access to the Libraries' physical and digital content through resource description activities. The Spanish Language Cataloger will work collaboratively with colleagues in Cataloging Metadata Services, the Cuban Heritage Collection, and many other partners both inside and outside the Libraries. Full job announcement and application instructions at http://library.miami.edu/employment/employment-spanish-cataloger/. - Glen Wiley Head of Cataloging Metadata Services University of Miami Libraries t: 305-284-1561 e: g.wi...@miami.edumailto:g.wi...@miami.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Clarification of LC's RDA implementation RE: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Thank you for the clarification, Ana. I've added the information you shared to my notes. I'm guessing Beacher was referring to the monograph and serials cataloging within the PSD in his remarks, and I missed that detail. Thanks, -Shana * Shana L. McDanold Head, Metadata Services Georgetown University Library 37th and O Streets, N.W. Washington, DC 20057 (202) 687-3356 sm2...@georgetown.edu On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Cristan, Ana Lupe a...@loc.gov wrote: Responding on behalf of the Library of Congress to clarify statements made at recent ALA meetings. ** ** All LC *authorities* will be created using RDA beginning on March 31, but units like NUCMC and Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division, etc. will continue to create bibliographic records using their current non-AACR2 standards. ** ** It should also be clarified that NAL is implementing RDA for Authorities on March 31, but as of last Friday (25 Jan. 2013) had not announced an implementation date for bibliographic records. ** ** Sincere apologies for any confusion caused by these remarks made at ALA. Ana Lupe Cristán Library of Congress Policy and Standards Division 101 Independence Ave. Washington, DC 20540-4305 Tel. +1.202.707.7921 fax +1.202.707.6629 Email: a...@loc.gov [image: cid:3406095300_24711525] ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Shana McDanold *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:01 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited ** ** While this is correct, it is notable that the Library of Congress is switching all bibliographic work over to RDA on the same date. ** ** Per Beacher Wiggins at the RDA Update Forum at ALA Midwinter this past weekend: everything coming out of LoC will follow RDA (they will ensure access points in copy are RDA, but they are not recataloging/recoding existing bib records). The other national libraries (Agriculture, Medicine) are targeting the same time frame for bibliographic implementation. ** ** Thanks, -Shana * Shana L. McDanold Head, Metadata Services Georgetown University Library 37th and O Streets, N.W. Washington, DC 20057 (202) 687-3356 sm2...@georgetown.edu ** ** ** ** On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: Julie, The RDA cutover date applies only to authority records. PCC libraries may continue to describe resources after March 31 using AACR2, but any new name authorities created for the LC/NACO Authority File must be formulated according to RDA instructions. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Julie Moore wrote: Please excuse the cross-posting ... Dear All, It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338 as a replacement for the GMD. I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really do not want to do that.) I know that some people are continuing to catalog using AACR2 and adding in the RDA fields, creating a hybrid record ... mainly so that they can keep the GMD ... until some more satisfactory solution comes about. (I'd rather not do that, either.) Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!) Cheers, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie ** **
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
In two of the three libraries where I volunteer, I have been instructed to add the GMD back in. Apparently, at least from what I have been told, both patrons and librarians like to know that something is, e.g., a movie or a sound recording from looking at the record in the online catalog. So far, at least, RDA seems to be more work. Buzz Haughton 1861 Pebblewood Dr Sacramento CA 95833 USA (916) 468-9027 bongob...@gmail.com
[RDA-L] GMDs
I shall ask Mac Elrod about this. He knows everything about everything.
It's Mark and Bernhard who come closer to knowing everything about
everything. How they keep up on the most recent developments is
astounding.
Mac: Is this true?
I'm not quite sure what this is. Continuation of GMDs?
No, I had no idea I've been teaching that GMDs will go away with
RDA.
Subfield 245$h[gmd] is not to be entered in RDA records on OCLC as I
understand it.
OCLC will not remove GMDs and replace them with 33X in legacy records
for a time (three years I seem to recall), but have said that they
will eventually do so. For that period they will accept GMDs in
new AACR2 records. OCLC allowing GMDs to remain in legacy records, and
to be in new AACR2 records, for a period of time, does not mean they
will accept them in RDA records.
Those who do not find icons sufficient (they usually don't show up in
hitlists for example), or are unable to map [338 : 336] to display at
end of title proper (including hitlists), or can't program to insert
GMDs based on 338, will probably be faced with manual insertion of
GMDs locally. Macros might speed that function.
Jean, it is unfortunate you are a prohetess not sufficiently honoured,
and that your excellent GMD study was ignored.
The GMD content/carrier dichotomy could have been solved by compound
GMDs, or qualified GMDs, using patron friendly and legacy record
related terms.
Fields 338 and 336 (with truncation of some terms, e.g., tactile,
cartographic, moving image) could be displayed as GMDs, but 337
should be suppressed from display. Those media type terms add no new
information, and computer is misleading; it's projected not
projector as media type. Apart from computer, mediating devices
are not used as media types. In addition, currently most e-books are
used on electronic devices other than those considered to be computers
by the public; JSC should change to the ISBD Area 0 electronic.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
