[RDA-L] Typos in Titles
RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I guess my attitude is a bit different. I want to make it clear that there's no attempt on my part to cause trouble, but ... This is one of the problems with RDA. We didn't connect with non-library employed users to find out their perspective. I would interpret this request to mean that the student is concerned about how a typo will reflect upon him. Rather than quote RDA rules, I would give him back the dissertation and suggest that he speak with the office on campus ... perhaps the Grad Office ... and see if he could re-type the typo correctly, have the item rebound, and THEN it could be re-catalogued. As I catalogue theses and dissertations our Grad Office does indeed ask for them back when such things arise. I always willingly comply. It's good PR. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I agree with this as it is not just the catalog that matters. A thesis or dissertation is a permanent item for the person who toiled for many years toward that. So s/he wants it to be as accurate as can be. Let the Grad school fix the error before it is cataloged. --angelina Angelina Joseph Cataloging Librarian Ray Kay Eckstein Law Library Marquette University Milwaukee, WI 53201 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jerri Swinehart [swine...@oakland.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 9:14 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I guess my attitude is a bit different. I want to make it clear that there's no attempt on my part to cause trouble, but ... This is one of the problems with RDA. We didn't connect with non-library employed users to find out their perspective. I would interpret this request to mean that the student is concerned about how a typo will reflect upon him. Rather than quote RDA rules, I would give him back the dissertation and suggest that he speak with the office on campus ... perhaps the Grad Office ... and see if he could re-type the typo correctly, have the item rebound, and THEN it could be re-catalogued. As I catalogue theses and dissertations our Grad Office does indeed ask for them back when such things arise. I always willingly comply. It's good PR. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu
[RDA-L] Mss. cataloging question
Where in RDA would I find the following information: I have a question about the carrier term for unbound quires or fragments of manuscripts. A codex=a volume; a sheet=leaves as letters, documents, loose leaves from a volume. What is the term for quires not yet bound or separated from a volume over time? Thanks, Rita Lifton The Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see. Just had one of those. Title was Upnashads. The record also had a 246. The whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer. Do we want to help the patron or not? RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers. It has to be a means to an end: Gee, I am glad I found this. Thanks. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.eduwrote: RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu -- 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] Typos in Titles
I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, [sic] ,for bringing gattention to known typos or other minor mistakes in the title. I think most users understand what it means, even the ones who don't know Latin. --Ben 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: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:44 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see. Just had one of those. Title was Upnashads. The record also had a 246. The whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer. Do we want to help the patron or not? RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers. It has to be a means to an end: Gee, I am glad I found this. Thanks. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu wrote: RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out 'and' for is. Rather, isn't the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn't it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246tel:%28608%29%20262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861tel:%28608%29%20262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu -- 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] Mss. cataloging question
The RDA definition of volume requires that the sheets be bound or fastened together. If you do not believe that this applies, then I would use sheet as the carrier type. I would probably describe the extent in terms of leaves or pages, and I would definitely make a note describing the unbound quires. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu - Original Message - | From: Rita Lifton rilif...@jtsa.edu | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:17:32 AM | Subject: [RDA-L] Mss. cataloging question | Where in RDA would I find the following information : | I have a question about the car rier term for unbound quires or | fragments of manuscripts. A codex=a volume; a sheet=leaves as | letters, documents, loose leaves from a volume. What is the term for | quires not yet bound or separated from a volume over time? | Thanks, | Rita Lifton | The Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
This is a rule discussion derived from the issue. It is between catalogers. No indication to quote the rule to the student. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Jerri Swinehart swine...@oakland.eduwrote: I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.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
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? Thanks, Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jerri Swinehart [swine...@oakland.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I agree with Jenifer's favoring 240 over 246 for the proper form of title. In support, check out n 84105541 in OCLC NAF: 1001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke 4001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plain and easy introduction to practical music Of course in Morley's time, the former title was considered proper spelling, and the title in the above 400 would have been considered riddled with typos. Any later edition reading Plain and easy... would be cataloged with the uniform, er, preferred title Plaine and easie.. as a 240, not as a variant title. I see a similar analogy to the erroneous dissertation title we're discussing. The work originally intended by the creator would have had the properly spelled title. Practically, I side with Angelina (and reinforced by others) that if a corrected title can be replaced by Student or Grad Office prior to cataloging, that would be best. But if not, then I'd opt for the 240 solution-- but not 246, for the reasons that others have argued. Rick McRae Catalog / Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music (585) 274-1370 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenifer K Marquardt Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? Thanks, Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jerri Swinehart [swine...@oakland.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
And this example is a reflection of orthographic reform. Does it fit the question asked? On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM, McRae, Rick rmc...@esm.rochester.eduwrote: I agree with Jenifer's favoring 240 over 246 for the proper form of title. In support, check out n 84105541 in OCLC NAF: 1001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke 4001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plain and easy introduction to practical music Of course in Morley's time, the former title was considered proper spelling, and the title in the above 400 would have been considered riddled with typos. Any later edition reading Plain and easy... would be cataloged with the uniform, er, preferred title Plaine and easie.. as a 240, not as a variant title. I see a similar analogy to the erroneous dissertation title we're discussing. The work originally intended by the creator would have had the properly spelled title. Practically, I side with Angelina (and reinforced by others) that if a corrected title can be replaced by Student or Grad Office prior to cataloging, that would be best. But if not, then I'd opt for the 240 solution-- but not 246, for the reasons that others have argued. Rick McRae Catalog / Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music (585) 274-1370 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenifer K Marquardt Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? Thanks, Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jerri Swinehart [ swine...@oakland.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu -- 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] Typos in Titles
On 07/03/2013 18:49, Jenifer K Marquardt wrote: snip Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? /snip The purpose of the uniform title is to bring together the same work when the titles vary. It is an organizing device. Therefore, the title on the physical piece may be The tragicall story of Hamlet, prince of Denmark but the uniform title ensures that people do not have to search under T to find Hamlet. The corrected title is simply that: it ensures that someone does not have to look under a typographical error to find an item. So, following the example above, if the title appeared as The tregicall story of Hamlet... there would be a corrected title and a uniform title. If an item comes out in only a single edition (or manifestation), there is no need for a 240. Naturally, this practice may be going overboard with RDA and FRBR since now everything supposedly has work, expression, manifestation and item qualities. -- *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] Typos in Titles
Just looking at the question practically: wouldn't using a 240 instead of a 246--though perhaps correct from the standpoint of RDA--require more authority work? And, since most libraries index 130, 24x, and most of the 7xx fields together in their title index, would that work be worth the effort in terms of better user outcomes? 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: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:07 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles And this example is a reflection of orthographic reform. Does it fit the question asked? On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM, McRae, Rick rmc...@esm.rochester.edumailto:rmc...@esm.rochester.edu wrote: I agree with Jenifer's favoring 240 over 246 for the proper form of title. In support, check out n 84105541 in OCLC NAF: 1001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke 4001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plain and easy introduction to practical music Of course in Morley's time, the former title was considered proper spelling, and the title in the above 400 would have been considered riddled with typos. Any later edition reading Plain and easy... would be cataloged with the uniform, er, preferred title Plaine and easie.. as a 240, not as a variant title. I see a similar analogy to the erroneous dissertation title we're discussing. The work originally intended by the creator would have had the properly spelled title. Practically, I side with Angelina (and reinforced by others) that if a corrected title can be replaced by Student or Grad Office prior to cataloging, that would be best. But if not, then I'd opt for the 240 solution-- but not 246, for the reasons that others have argued. Rick McRae Catalog / Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music (585) 274-1370tel:%28585%29%20274-1370 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenifer K Marquardt Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? Thanks, Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jerri Swinehart [swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu -- 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] Mss. cataloging question
You might also consider using form and genre terms in655. AAT has both "unbound" and "gatherings (gathered matter components)" available for use. They could even be combined. I'm well aware that the current generation of systems do not handle faceting particularly well, but it is useful to have controlled terms expressing a morespecific carrier typewith futureapplications in mind. Maria Oldal Head of Cataloging and Database Maintenance The Morgan Library Museum old...@themorgan.org JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu 3/7/2013 12:24 PM The RDA definition of volume requires that the sheets be "bound or fastened together". If you do not believe that this applies, then I would use "sheet" as the carrier type. I would probably describe the extent in terms of leaves or pages, and I would definitely make a note describing the unbound quires.John AttigAuthority Control LibrarianPenn State Universityjx...@psu.edu From: "Rita Lifton" rilif...@jtsa.eduTo: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CASent: Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:17:32 AMSubject: [RDA-L] Mss. cataloging question Where in RDA would I find the following information: I have a question about the carrier term for unbound quires or fragments of manuscripts. A codex=a volume; a sheet=leaves as letters, documents, loose leaves from a volume. What is the term for quires not yet bound or separated from a volume over time? Thanks, Rita Lifton The Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Ben said:
I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the
device, [sic] ,for bringing attention to known typos or other
minor mistakes in the title. I think most users understand what it
means, even the ones who don't know Latin.
Ben, I agree with you absolutely that removing the practice of
correcting in situ was a mistake, but I think the reason is simple.
RDA envisions harvesting data and using it as found, thus the
acceptance of strange capitalization.
I don't get it. It is more labour intensive to work around this
lacuna than to apply it.
If we do move to dispersed data collected from the cloud, the form of
the transcribed title will be outside our control. I don't look
forward to that day.
Some clients spell check their records, and ask for corrections, even
when the alternate spelling to which they object is on the title page.
Having that [sic] tells us whether to do a 246 or change the 245.
As outsourcers we can't go pull the item off the shelf to check. We
may have to start asking for scans before we correct a 245.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Jenifer asked:
Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC
field 246 rather than in the 240?
There is one very practical reason. All of our clients index 246.
Many do not index 240 because of the useless ones for indexes (e.g.,
Works ...). Some clients ask that distinctive 240s be made 730s for
that reason, as well as not wanting something not on the item in brief
display.
For us, many RDA provisions reflect a lack of direct experience of
library needs we get from client feedback.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Mss. cataloging question
Rita asked:
What is the term for quires not yet bound or separated from a volume
over time?
If we are describing the original item with a note of what the cleint
has from it, volume. If we are describing just what they have,
sheet.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
In Bib. Format Standards, the section under field 246, 2nd Indicator blank, use for corrected forms of titles has an example for correction of mis-spelling, so it does not appear to me there is a problem here. Even if it goes beyond the spelling out or not of a word, it's still a variation from the title, where no type is specified. I think putting sic, or equivalent English in brackets is also helpful in addition to the use of 246 field. The suggestion to send the thesis back to be corrected and rebound confuses the keeper/recorder role of the librarian with creation and acceptance of the thesis. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edu 3/7/2013 6:49 AM RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
[RDA-L] FW: [PCCLIST] Access points for treaties
In case anyone has mentioned this in their training material . Bill Division du contenu ouvert | Open Content Division 819-994-6936 william.leon...@bac-lac.gc.camailto:william.leon...@lac-bac.gc.ca Bibliothèque et Archives Canada | Library and Archives Canada Gatineau, Québec K1A 0N4 Gouvernement du Canada | Government of Canada From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:pccl...@listserv.loc.gov] On Behalf Of Beck, Melissa Sent: March-06-13 5:26 PM To: pccl...@listserv.loc.gov Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Access points for treaties I heartily third, and commend John for the substantial work he has done (and continues to do) in having this RDA instruction (amicably) revised. Melissa From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:pccl...@listserv.loc.gov] On Behalf Of Richard Amelung Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:21 PM To: pccl...@listserv.loc.govmailto:pccl...@listserv.loc.gov Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Access points for treaties Dear all-- I heartily second John's request that these headings NOT be modified at this time. At Saint Louis University Law Library we are currently holding on processing numerous historical treaties precisely because the headings that we would need to establish under RDA would offer unexpected, unrecognizable, and ... more importantly ... user unfriendly results. With all due respect to those who, with good intentions, crafted this section of RDA, AALL would like to offer some friendly amendments as John indicates. Many thanks for your indulgence at this time. Richard On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:36 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I would like to enter a plea that access points for treaties not be changed to the form presently called for by RDA. Law librarians find the instruction in RDA (access points starting with the first-named government, including for multilateral treaties) to be unacceptable. The American Association of Law Libraries is working on a proposal to revise RDA to produce better outcomes for treaties. This proposal will be submitted to ALA's CC:DA and hopefully forwarded to the Joint Steering Committee for RDA. Meanwhile, existing authority records probably can't be changed by machine processes, and it would be nice if NACO members avoided changing them manually until this is settled. Thank you. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20496-4409 (fax) -- Richard C. Amelung, Ph. D. Professor of Legal Research Associate Director, Law Library Saint Louis University School of Law Tel.: 314-977-2743 Fax: 314-977-3966
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On 3/7/2013 9:47 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: This is a rule discussion derived from the issue. It is between catalogers. No indication to quote the rule to the student. Might you not find this patron/student asking you to explain *why* you are refusing to make the requested correction and instead asking them to have the item reprinted first? -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
It seems to me there are two separate issues here. The first has to do with letting the student/institution correct the title and re-issue the resource. That would happen outside the cataloging process and RDA doesn't really come into play. (I suppose technically this would be a new manifestation, but that may be moot since the old manifestation wouldn't exist anymore.) The other issue is if you catalog the current manifestation with the typo in the title proper. I think it is possible to have all three fields: 1) You'd have a 245 where you transcribe the Title Proper of the Manifestation as it appears, with the typo. 2) You'd also have a 246 where you can enter the Variant Title of the Manifestation (which is the Title Proper of the Manifestation with the typo corrected). 3) You *can* also have a 240 with the Preferred Title of the Work. And the title of the work *can* be identical in content to the Title Proper of the Manifestation, or to a corrected version of it (a Variant Title of the Manifestation). But in FRBR world I think it is conceptually a different element. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is, When you say real title I think it is important to distinguish between real title of the manifestation versus real title of the work. If we're talking about manifestation, RDA defines variant title as including corrected versions of titles (RDA 2.6.3.1. e)). So by RDA's definition, a corrected typo is a variation of the real title--of the manifestation. It is in the same category as spelling out and for ampersand. Meanwhile, your Preferred Title of the Work may be identical in content to either the Title Proper of the Manifestation or a corrected Variant of it. As some have pointed out, in reality, if the 240 is going to be identical in content to either the 245 or the 246, it is not typical to include the 240. This might be driven by practical reasons: the 240 in this case may be seen as unnecessary because it won't increase access, provide any collocation, aid in selection, etc. (but it does increase workload). But I don't see why--at least from a theoretical standpoint--we couldn't have all three (245, 246, 240) if we wanted to. They are conceptually different elements. (I'll also note that Preferred Title of the Work is a core element in RDA.) Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? So I say, couldn't it be both? Consider the case of a manifestation that has a typo in the title proper *and* it just so happens that the work embodied by this manifestation also has other expressions/manifestations out there. Wouldn't you have all three (245, 246, 240)? The 245 would be for the title proper with typo, the 246 would be for the corrected title proper, and the 240 would be for the work title. Here, the work title * might* be identical to the 246, *or* it might be identical to a 245/246 from one of the *other *manifestations out there. Arthur Liu MLS Candidate Simmons College On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: Just looking at the question practically: wouldn't using a 240 instead of a 246--though perhaps correct from the standpoint of RDA--require more authority work? And, since most libraries index 130, 24x, and most of the 7xx fields together in their title index, would that work be worth the effort in terms of better user outcomes? ** ** ** ** 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:* Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:07 PM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles ** ** And this example is a reflection of orthographic reform. Does it fit the question asked? On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM, McRae, Rick rmc...@esm.rochester.edu wrote: I agree with Jenifer's favoring 240 over 246 for the proper form of title. In support, check out n 84105541 in OCLC NAF: 1001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke 4001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plain and easy introduction to practical music Of course in Morley's time, the former title was considered proper spelling, and the title in the above 400 would have been considered riddled with typos. Any later edition reading Plain and easy... would be cataloged with the uniform, er, preferred title Plaine and easie.. as a 240, not as a variant title. I see a similar analogy to the erroneous dissertation title we're discussing. The work originally intended by the creator
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
RDA-L readers, Jenifer Marquardt asked Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? Field 240, Uniform Title, is always associated with a 1XX field. If no 1XX field is present, the data is tagged 130. Thus, field 240 is always an appendage to an *author* field, a name heading plus uniform title (in AACR2-speak), that is, a name-title entry (in more common parlance among catalogers). See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd240.html Uniform title for an item when the bibliographic description is entered under a main entry field that contains a personal (field 100), corporate (110), or meeting (111) name. Field 246, on the other hand, is a Varying Form of Title field: Varying forms of the title appearing on different parts of an item or a portion of the title proper, or an alternative form of the title when the form differs substantially from the title statement in field 245 and if they contribute to the further identification of the item. http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd246.html In terms of literary warrant: The corrected form of title often lacks it, in the sense that the title as transcribed, error and all, is the only existing warrant. The cataloger is exercising judgment in providing a correction. That is different from establishing the corrected title as a uniform title. You really should have justification in a documentable source in order to do that. RDA does not give instruction on using [sic] (in contrast to AACR2 1.0F1) and there are various reasons why doing so is a good/bad idea. So no wonder we argue the case back and forth! My favorite example is a compact disc sound recording with title The Dutchess (actually, the name of the artist). That is not a typo, so it would not be appropriate to correct it. You can however add [sic] to indicate that you haven't introduced a typo in your transcription, in case anyone should wonder. But that has gone out of fashion, so to speak, along with use of other Latin abbreviations. Personally, I dislike the phrase Title should read. Who are we catalogers to tell people how their creations should read? I hope this helps. Does it answer the question? - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
All I am saying is about a title with wrong spellings in a manifestation. This is an issue derived from the mentioned thesis. I do not have any offense on the solution of correcting the title through Graduate Office. The thing also could happen in other cases in addition to a thesis. Does that make sense? Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Lisa Hatt hattl...@fhda.edu wrote: On 3/7/2013 9:47 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: This is a rule discussion derived from the issue. It is between catalogers. No indication to quote the rule to the student. Might you not find this patron/student asking you to explain *why* you are refusing to make the requested correction and instead asking them to have the item reprinted first? -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459 -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Perhaps this is a silly question, but suppose the title were repeated elsewhere in the resource (say, t.p. verso), could that form be used and the typo-d form on the t.p. disregarded altogether (or referenced in a 246 with a $i indicating its source)? Thanks, Jasmin Jasmin Nof Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 F. 215-573-9610 j...@upenn.edu On 3/7/2013 2:09 PM, Jack Wu wrote: In Bib. Format Standards, the section under field 246, 2nd Indicator blank, use for corrected forms of titles has an example for correction of mis-spelling, so it does not appear to me there is a problem here. Even if it goes beyond the spelling out or not of a word, it's still a variation from the title, where no type is specified. I think putting sic, or equivalent English in brackets is also helpful in addition to the use of 246 field. The suggestion to send the thesis back to be corrected and rebound confuses the keeper/recorder role of the librarian with creation and acceptance of the thesis. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu mailto:j...@franciscan.edu Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edu 3/7/2013 6:49 AM RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Not to dwell on this overmuch, but, in response to Ian's: Field 240, Uniform Title, is always associated with a 1XX field. If no 1XX field is present, the data is tagged 130. Thus, field 240 is always an appendage to an *author* field, a name heading plus uniform title (in AACR2-speak), that is, a name-title entry (in more common parlance among catalogers). See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd240.html Uniform title for an item when the bibliographic description is entered under a main entry field that contains a personal (field 100), corporate (110), or meeting (111) name. In the dissertation case, the title is crucially connected to the 1xx field. (Why the author would be so recklessly remiss as to not proofread the title-page of his/her own thesis is another question entirely, outside the scope of our discussion). As stated before, I think we catalogers should have the ability to judge what the correct title is if the typo is obviously understood (e.g., too instead of to in grammatical context, but not moose for goose) and record that as a 240 for the work title, keeping transcription (without [sic] in my opinion) in 245. For such a standalone work as a dissertation, I wouldn't bother with creating a name-title record for this 100/240 in the authority file (unless the diss. were translated or made into an opera or comic book or something). Now I'm grafting Jasmin's question into this message: Perhaps this is a silly question, but suppose the title were repeated elsewhere in the resource (say, t.p. verso), could that form be used and the typo-d form on the t.p. disregarded altogether (or referenced in a 246 with a $i indicating its source)? My vote: yes, by all means. Not a silly question-a plausible circumstance! Thanks, Rick McRae Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music
[RDA-L] Sic 'em! (was RE: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles)
Not to continue to beat a horse I suspect is already dead, but sic is not the same type of Latin abbreviation as the s.l. or et al. of blessed recent memory. In point of fact, it appears in most English dictionaries including Webster's and the OED, the latter of which defines it as, A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous in the original, or to guard against the supposition of misquotation. Exactly the way it is used (was used) by catalogers. Only once in my cataloging career have I been asked by a user about the presence of a [sic] in a record. And as it happened it wasn't that he didn't understand what it meant, it was that he disagreed that it was an error (one of those borderline cases of using a possessive apostrophe after a word that ends in a voiced sibilant.) All of which is to say while [sic] can be misused by overfussy catalogers, that in itself does not warrant getting rid of the practice altogether. b 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 Ian Fairclough Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:42 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles RDA-L readers, Jenifer Marquardt asked Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? Field 240, Uniform Title, is always associated with a 1XX field. If no 1XX field is present, the data is tagged 130. Thus, field 240 is always an appendage to an *author* field, a name heading plus uniform title (in AACR2-speak), that is, a name-title entry (in more common parlance among catalogers). See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd240.html Uniform title for an item when the bibliographic description is entered under a main entry field that contains a personal (field 100), corporate (110), or meeting (111) name. Field 246, on the other hand, is a Varying Form of Title field: Varying forms of the title appearing on different parts of an item or a portion of the title proper, or an alternative form of the title when the form differs substantially from the title statement in field 245 and if they contribute to the further identification of the item. http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd246.html In terms of literary warrant: The corrected form of title often lacks it, in the sense that the title as transcribed, error and all, is the only existing warrant. The cataloger is exercising judgment in providing a correction. That is different from establishing the corrected title as a uniform title. You really should have justification in a documentable source in order to do that. RDA does not give instruction on using [sic] (in contrast to AACR2 1.0F1) and there are various reasons why doing so is a good/bad idea. So no wonder we argue the case back and forth! My favorite example is a compact disc sound recording with title The Dutchess (actually, the name of the artist). That is not a typo, so it would not be appropriate to correct it. You can however add [sic] to indicate that you haven't introduced a typo in your transcription, in case anyone should wonder. But that has gone out of fashion, so to speak, along with use of other Latin abbreviations. Personally, I dislike the phrase Title should read. Who are we catalogers to tell people how their creations should read? I hope this helps. Does it answer the question? - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.commailto:ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
MARC field 245 is for identifying the *manifestation* (RDA 2.3). You use what is found on the preferred source of the manifestation, typos and all. You also need to identify the *work* (RDA 6.2). In our current environment, for the typical book (including dissertations) that's going to have a creator's name as part of the access point, that means there must be a MARC field 240 for the preferred title, if it differs from the title of the manifestation. The preferred title of the work can come from any source; it does not depend entirely on the sole manifestation. In this case under discussion, there IS a difference between the manifestation and the preferred title of the work, so 240 should be used. A note may also be given about the typo (RDA 2.20.2.4), but is not required. (Personally, I would give the note.) Whether this is done via 246 or 500 could be debated. 246 is not really essential for access, since the correct form of the title will be in the 240. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jasmin Nof Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:37 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles Perhaps this is a silly question, but suppose the title were repeated elsewhere in the resource (say, t.p. verso), could that form be used and the typo-d form on the t.p. disregarded altogether (or referenced in a 246 with a $i indicating its source)? Thanks, Jasmin Jasmin Nof Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 F. 215-573-9610 j...@upenn.edumailto:j...@upenn.edu On 3/7/2013 2:09 PM, Jack Wu wrote: In Bib. Format Standards, the section under field 246, 2nd Indicator blank, use for corrected forms of titles has an example for correction of mis-spelling, so it does not appear to me there is a problem here. Even if it goes beyond the spelling out or not of a word, it's still a variation from the title, where no type is specified. I think putting sic, or equivalent English in brackets is also helpful in addition to the use of 246 field. The suggestion to send the thesis back to be corrected and rebound confuses the keeper/recorder role of the librarian with creation and acceptance of the thesis. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu 3/7/2013 6:49 AM RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
[RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087
I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance. I have cataloged this record according to RDA standards (I hope!). What troubles me is the 710 for Polaroid Collections. I have no idea what to use for the subfield $e except perhaps contributor, and that doesn't seem correct. The term author would seem to suggest that the Polaroid Collections should be the preferred entry, but this book does not seem to fall into any of the categories for corporate authorship. I did use the subdivision Catalogs in one of the 610 fields, but this doesn't seem to be an official catalog, although all the illustrations are of photographs held by the Polaroid Collections, and Barbara Hitchcock is the director of the Collections. Thoughts? Any and all corrections also gratefully received, especially for the 300 field. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Kevin said:
In this case under discussion, there IS a difference between the
manifestation and the preferred title of the work, so 240 should be
used.
The function of a 240 is to unite manifestions of works/expressions
with differingn titles. If this is the only manifestation, we would
not use 240.
My attitude may be influenced by many of our clients' distaste for
240s (apart from Shealespeare and music), as not being on the item, so
misleading in brief display when seen first rather than 245.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087
I don't believe there is any relationship designator yet defined in RDA appropriate for this particular relationship (and lots of others). The place this relationship fits into is I.2.2 (Relationship Designators for Other Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Associated with a Work). Not much there that fits this! The closest seem to be host institution, Issuing body, and sponsoring body, but none of them is really appropriate. I would just omit subfield $e, since it is not a required element. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:57 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087 I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance. I have cataloged this record according to RDA standards (I hope!). What troubles me is the 710 for Polaroid Collections. I have no idea what to use for the subfield $e except perhaps contributor, and that doesn't seem correct. The term author would seem to suggest that the Polaroid Collections should be the preferred entry, but this book does not seem to fall into any of the categories for corporate authorship. I did use the subdivision Catalogs in one of the 610 fields, but this doesn't seem to be an official catalog, although all the illustrations are of photographs held by the Polaroid Collections, and Barbara Hitchcock is the director of the Collections. Thoughts? Any and all corrections also gratefully received, especially for the 300 field. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087
In looking at the examples in RDA 19.3.1.3 for Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work there are several instances where a specific relationship designator is not in the initial phrasing for the example. So when one sees Authorized access point representing the dedicatee for one can take that mean that the relationship designator dedicatee is used. When one sees Authorized access point representing the corporate body associated with the work for then no relationship designator is used. The top-level elements for Work relationships are: Creator Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work So if one can't see a match in the list of relationship designators in RDA Appendix I.2.2 (for Others associated with a Work) then no relationship designator is assigned. The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where one has an undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator, other associated with the work, contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: March-07-13 5:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087 I don't believe there is any relationship designator yet defined in RDA appropriate for this particular relationship (and lots of others). The place this relationship fits into is I.2.2 (Relationship Designators for Other Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Associated with a Work). Not much there that fits this! The closest seem to be host institution, Issuing body, and sponsoring body, but none of them is really appropriate. I would just omit subfield $e, since it is not a required element. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:57 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087 I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance. I have cataloged this record according to RDA standards (I hope!). What troubles me is the 710 for Polaroid Collections. I have no idea what to use for the subfield $e except perhaps contributor, and that doesn't seem correct. The term author would seem to suggest that the Polaroid Collections should be the preferred entry, but this book does not seem to fall into any of the categories for corporate authorship. I did use the subdivision Catalogs in one of the 610 fields, but this doesn't seem to be an official catalog, although all the illustrations are of photographs held by the Polaroid Collections, and Barbara Hitchcock is the director of the Collections. Thoughts? Any and all corrections also gratefully received, especially for the 300 field. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Mac Elrod wrote: Kevin said: In this case under discussion, there IS a difference between the manifestation and the preferred title of the work, so 240 should be used. The function of a 240 is to unite manifestions of works/expressions with differingn titles. If this is the only manifestation, we would not use 240. My attitude may be influenced by many of our clients' distaste for 240s (apart from Shealespeare and music), as not being on the item, so misleading in brief display when seen first rather than 245. No, the function of the 240 (in RDA records) is to give the name of the work, if that name is different from the title proper in the 245 field. The problem we have is that for the time being we're stuck with a data structure that was designed for printing catalog cards. The technology of card catalogs is very, very different from entity-relationship modeling, which is the main way we conceive of data in bibliographic databases. For filing purposes, MARC 245 is expected to be the established form of the title if: - there is no 1XX field, OR - there is a 1XX field but NOT a 240 field. MARC 245 is expected to be just a variant access point if: - there is a 1XX field, AND - there is a 240 field. There is no way that 245 can be BOTH the name of the work AND the title proper of the manifestation if there is a difference between the two. Actually, I think we should consider ourselves lucky we've been able to keep MARC working as well as it does for us, seeing how much we're expecting the data to do, beyond what was expected close to half a century ago. In order to have the data migrate cleanly to a format that's more RDA-friendly, the 240 field is essential in a case like this. If your clients have distaste for the 240 field, I question how well they understand or care how bibliographic data works. 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] (OCoLC)829311087
Thomas said: The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where one has an undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator, other associated with the work, contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators). Creator, Contributor, Publisher, and other top-level elements are actually in the list at http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html But Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work is not there. However RDA appendix I.1 says: If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term indicating the nature of the relationship as concisely as possible. So if we can think of a more specific term, we can use it in $e (notice that the MARC instructions for $e do not mention the code list); the problem being, of course, that there will be no corresponding $4 code, unless we can get our new term approved and added to the list in I.1 and the MARC Code List for Relators. As Thomas points out, if we do not add Relationship Designators, we have no way of knowing what the relationships are in MARC, because the tag numbers will not tell us about exact relationships. Even though Relationship Designators are not RDA-Core, I believe that the reason that they are not core is that the top-level relationship will always be present as an element, and so that element label will be used to express the relationship, if no more specific designator is provided. So, we should make every attempt to add relationship designators in our MARC records, even if they are just the top-level ones. The one problem being that crazy long Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work for which MARC has no entry. So this is where we can invoke the permission to come up with our own term. I'm not going to take a stab at a suggestion for this resource, however. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com debo...@marcofquality.com http://www.marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087 In looking at the examples in RDA 19.3.1.3 for Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work there are several instances where a specific relationship designator is not in the initial phrasing for the example. So when one sees Authorized access point representing the dedicatee for one can take that mean that the relationship designator dedicatee is used. When one sees Authorized access point representing the corporate body associated with the work for then no relationship designator is used. The top-level elements for Work relationships are: Creator Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work So if one can't see a match in the list of relationship designators in RDA Appendix I.2.2 (for Others associated with a Work) then no relationship designator is assigned. The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where one has an undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator, other associated with the work, contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: March-07-13 5:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087 I don't believe there is any relationship designator yet defined in RDA appropriate for this particular relationship (and lots of others). The place this relationship fits into is I.2.2 (Relationship Designators for Other Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Associated with a Work). Not much there that fits this! The closest seem to be host institution, Issuing body, and sponsoring body, but none of them is really appropriate. I would just omit subfield $e, since it is not a required element. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:57 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087 I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance. I have cataloged this record according to RDA standards (I hope!). What troubles me is the 710 for Polaroid Collections. I have no idea what to use for the subfield $e except perhaps contributor, and that doesn't seem correct. The term author would
