[RDA-L] Designator Relator Code

[Malar Thomas]

Hi all

May I ask maybe a simple question? I have an item of which the author plays
multiple roles. How can I enter the relator code, #e? Do I repeat the #e to
include as author, illustrator, editor, etc on the same tag 100 field?

Thank you for your spirit of sharing!
Ms Malarvele Ilangovan
Tamil Cataloguer
National Library, Singapore

Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Use of Headings for Fictitious Characters

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> 100 __|a Stilton, Thea (Fictitious character)
>
> If the resource says "by Thea Stilton", this is fine with me.  Ditto
> Geronimo Stilton.  we should describe resources as they present
> themselves.  (I would not object to a subfield code for the
> qualifier.)


The qualifier would appear in the $c.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

[Laurence S. Creider]

"Authorized Version" makes no sense in the USA, except as authorized by a
particular non-governmental body.  The Jefferson Bible was published by
the GPO in 1904, but this was not an authorization.
The term Authorized Version does work in the UK.  According to the
Wikipedia article you cite, it was probably authorized for public use by
the Privy Council and its text was authorized for use in the readings in
the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer later by Act of Parliament.

Larry
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Interim Head
Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu

On Thu, May 16, 2013 9:09 am, Kevin M Randall wrote:
> Martin Kelleher wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'd consider 'Authorized Version' to be a relative term, and
>> always understood the generic, universally recognizable term for the
>> 1611
>> translation to be the King James Bible. I presume there's an academic
>> (and presumably C of E) understanding of 'Authorized Version' as being
>> the formal term for the KJB, but I doubt it's more universal than that.
>> Still,
>> would you go for the formal designation, even if it's religion specific?
>
> There's an interesting article on Wikipedia, giving the origins of the
> name.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
>
> Personally, I've always found the name "Authorized Version" to be very
> presumptuous.  "Authorized" by whom?  A cataloging code aiming to be
> universal and inclusive should probably refer to the version by a name
> that implies a more neutral stance.  Thus I would prefer to call it the
> "King James Version" or "King James Bible".
>
> 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] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

[Paradis Daniel]

You are right, the adaptation of 6.23.2.9.2 that was made in the French version 
was deliberate, to respect the spirit of 0.11.2 and ensure that titles for the 
books of the Bible would be recorded in French in a French catalogue. It goes 
without saying that the French cataloguing community would support a proposal 
to make that rule more international.

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
 
Avis de confidentialité
Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et l'information qu'il 
contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous n'êtes pas le 
destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser cette information, de la 
copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été 
transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par 
courriel.
 

-Message d'origine-
De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Envoyé : 16 mai 2013 08:21
À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: "For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, 
record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a 
subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible."

Is my interpretation correct that "Authorized Version" here is not meant 
in a general sense of "some standard version", but rather as a reference 
to a specific English version of the Bible, namely the King James Bible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version

I'm asking because I've just noticed that "of the Authorized Version" 
has been translated into German as "der autorisierten Version" (i.e. "of 
the authorized version", in a general descriptive sense, not as a 
specific title). This makes it sound as if it was some unspecified, 
somehow authorized version, which doesn't sound right to me. Also, it 
wouldn't be helpful as it doesn't tell us who is supposed to do the 
authorizing (the agency?) and according to which criteria.

The French, on the other hand, seem to have deliberately - and, I'd say, 
very reasonably - changed the meaning: "Pour les livres du canon 
catholique ou protestant, enregistrer une forme brève du titre du livre 
consacré par l'usage en français comme subdivision du titre privilégié 
de la Bible." So, they explicitly state that the title of the book 
should follow French usage.

I think 6.23.2.9.2 should be adapted to make it really "international", 
e.g. by saying "record the title of the book according to a standard 
version of the Bible in the language and script preferred by the agency".

Heidrun

-- 
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

[Kevin M Randall]

Martin Kelleher wrote:

> Personally, I'd consider 'Authorized Version' to be a relative term, and
> always understood the generic, universally recognizable term for the 1611
> translation to be the King James Bible. I presume there's an academic
> (and presumably C of E) understanding of 'Authorized Version' as being
> the formal term for the KJB, but I doubt it's more universal than that. Still,
> would you go for the formal designation, even if it's religion specific?

There's an interesting article on Wikipedia, giving the origins of the name.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Personally, I've always found the name "Authorized Version" to be very 
presumptuous.  "Authorized" by whom?  A cataloging code aiming to be universal 
and inclusive should probably refer to the version by a name that implies a 
more neutral stance.  Thus I would prefer to call it the "King James Version" 
or "King James Bible".

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] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

[Charles Croissant]

Certainly, "Authorized Version" in the context of RDA 6.23.2.9.2 is a
specific designation for the King James Bible, not a generic term -- this
usage in cataloging rules predates RDA and goes back through AACR to the
ALA rules of 1949 and presumably further.

As Heidrun notes, this is an Anglocentric usage and as such should be a
candidate for rewording, if RDA indeed aspires to be an international
cataloging code. I would strongly support a rewording of the rule along the
lines she suggests.

Charles Croissant
Senior Catalog Librarian
Pius XII Memorial Library
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, MO 63108

Re: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

[Kelleher, Martin]

Personally, I'd consider 'Authorized Version' to be a relative term, and always 
understood the generic, universally recognizable term for the 1611 translation 
to be the King James Bible. I presume there's an academic (and presumably C of 
E) understanding of 'Authorized Version' as being the formal term for the KJB, 
but I doubt it's more universal than that. Still, would you go for the formal 
designation, even if it's religion specific?


Best wishes

Martin Kelleher
Metadata Manager
University of Liverpool

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Malcolm Jones
Sent: 16 May 2013 14:07
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

In England, the expression Authorised Version, often simply AV. certainly means 
the version published in 1611, (also known as the King James Bible) 
irrespective of the religious denomination of the speaker/writer.

Others more familiar than I can speak of N. American usage, but I have always 
understood that the above practice was common throughout the English speaking 
world.

Is not the German issue one of orthography? In German, nouns must have a 
capital letter, but adjectives may not.

Hence it is impossible to translate the English usage without creating the 
ambiguity, at leat to an anglophone mind.
German speakers may tell us whether or not it is an issue there.


Rev'd Malcolm Jones

St. Richard's Vicarage
Hailsham Road
Heathfield
East Sussex
TN21 8AF
 
tel: 01435 862744
mobile: 07799265097
malc...@peri.co.uk
www.peri.co.uk


-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: 16 May 2013 13:21
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: "For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record the 
brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the preferred 
title for the Bible."

Is my interpretation correct that "Authorized Version" here is not meant in a 
general sense of "some standard version", but rather as a reference to a 
specific English version of the Bible, namely the King James Bible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version

I'm asking because I've just noticed that "of the Authorized Version" 
has been translated into German as "der autorisierten Version" (i.e. "of the 
authorized version", in a general descriptive sense, not as a specific title). 
This makes it sound as if it was some unspecified, somehow authorized version, 
which doesn't sound right to me. Also, it wouldn't be helpful as it doesn't 
tell us who is supposed to do the authorizing (the
agency?) and according to which criteria.

The French, on the other hand, seem to have deliberately - and, I'd say, very 
reasonably - changed the meaning: "Pour les livres du canon catholique ou 
protestant, enregistrer une forme brève du titre du livre consacré par l'usage 
en français comme subdivision du titre privilégié de la Bible." So, they 
explicitly state that the title of the book should follow French usage.

I think 6.23.2.9.2 should be adapted to make it really "international", e.g.
by saying "record the title of the book according to a standard version of the 
Bible in the language and script preferred by the agency".

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

[John Hostage]

I believe that this is one area that the JSC didn't have time to completely 
reconsider before RDA was published.  I think your understanding of the rule is 
correct and it would make sense for the German translation to follow the French 
example.  Indeed, I don't see why books of the Bible aren't treated under 
6.2.2.9.

--
John Hostage 
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138 
host...@law.harvard.edu 
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) 
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
> Wiesenmüller
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 08:21
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)
> 
> RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: "For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record
> the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the
> preferred title for the Bible."
> 
> Is my interpretation correct that "Authorized Version" here is not meant in a
> general sense of "some standard version", but rather as a reference to a
> specific English version of the Bible, namely the King James Bible?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version
> 
> I'm asking because I've just noticed that "of the Authorized Version"
> has been translated into German as "der autorisierten Version" (i.e. "of the
> authorized version", in a general descriptive sense, not as a specific title).
> This makes it sound as if it was some unspecified, somehow authorized
> version, which doesn't sound right to me. Also, it wouldn't be helpful as it
> doesn't tell us who is supposed to do the authorizing (the agency?) and
> according to which criteria.
> 
> The French, on the other hand, seem to have deliberately - and, I'd say, very
> reasonably - changed the meaning: "Pour les livres du canon catholique ou
> protestant, enregistrer une forme brève du titre du livre consacré par l'usage
> en français comme subdivision du titre privilégié de la Bible." So, they
> explicitly state that the title of the book should follow French usage.
> 
> I think 6.23.2.9.2 should be adapted to make it really "international", e.g. 
> by
> saying "record the title of the book according to a standard version of the
> Bible in the language and script preferred by the agency".
> 
> Heidrun
> 
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Malcolm Jones wrote:


In England, the expression Authorised Version, often simply AV. certainly
means the version published in 1611,
(also known as the King James Bible) irrespective of the religious
denomination of the speaker/writer.

Others more familiar than I can speak of N. American usage, but I have
always understood that the above practice
was common throughout the English speaking world.


Thanks, so my assumption (as a non-native speaker of English) was correct.



Is not the German issue one of orthography? In German, nouns must have a
capital letter, but adjectives may not.


Quite. To bring out that the words "autorisierte Version" are to be read 
as a title and not as a mere descriptive phrase, it should have read 
"Autorisierte Version", or, even better, "King-James-Bibel", which is a 
common way of calling it in German. But I suspect that there was a 
misunderstanding during translating and it simply wasn't realized that 
"Authorized Version" is the title of a specific version of the bible. 
The examples given are all in German (e.g. "Bibel. Esra" and "Bibel. 
Offenbarung"). So what we see here decidedly is not the "the brief 
citation form of the Authorized Version".



Hence it is impossible to translate the English usage without creating the
ambiguity, at leat to an anglophone mind.
German speakers may tell us whether or not it is an issue there.


It would be possible to remove the ambiguity in German and render the 
exact meaning of the current rule (see above). But the real issue lies, 
of course, deeper, as we Germans do not want to use English titles for 
the books of the Bible, but German ones. The current wording of the rule 
doesn't seem to allow this.


I think one possibility would be to make a proposal for a change to the 
rule itself (as suggested in my first mail), and the other would be to 
follow the lead of the French and daringly (but certainly in the spirit 
of RDA 0.11) adapt the German version of the text. But before I start a 
discussion on this here in Germany, I really wanted to make sure it 
wasn't me who had the misunderstanding ;-)


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

[RDA-L] Complete rewording of RDA [was: JSC web site: recent postings]

[Karen Benko]

So according to (2), "the complete rewording of RDA as requested by the 
U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee" should have been released two days 
ago. I would be interested to hear reactions from frequent users of RDA, 
as I, alas, am not.


On 4/2/2013 11:07 AM, JSC Secretary wrote:
(1)  Recent documents posted to the JSC web site 
(http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html):


-- 6JSC/BL/3/Rev/Sec final/rev
-- 6JSC/LC/11/Sec final/rev
-- 6JSC/Policy/3 [Duty statement for the JSC Secretary]

The revisions to the Sec final documents for 6JSC/BL/3/Rev and for 
6JSC/LC/11 adds information for 8.3 omitted in the original proposal 
by LC.


(2)  The announcement on the RDA Toolkit blog about the revised RDA 
Toolkit schedule was re-posted on the JSC web site 
(http://www.rda-jsc.org/news.html).



Regards, Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary


--
*Karen Gorss Benko*
Catalog Librarian
Collection liaison to Russian and English
Williams College
Williamstown, Massachusetts
karen.gorss.be...@williams.edu
413-597-4322

Re: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

[Malcolm Jones]

In England, the expression Authorised Version, often simply AV. certainly
means the version published in 1611, 
(also known as the King James Bible) irrespective of the religious
denomination of the speaker/writer.

Others more familiar than I can speak of N. American usage, but I have
always understood that the above practice
was common throughout the English speaking world.

Is not the German issue one of orthography? In German, nouns must have a
capital letter, but adjectives may not.

Hence it is impossible to translate the English usage without creating the
ambiguity, at leat to an anglophone mind.
German speakers may tell us whether or not it is an issue there.


Rev'd Malcolm Jones

St. Richard's Vicarage
Hailsham Road
Heathfield
East Sussex
TN21 8AF
 
tel: 01435 862744
mobile: 07799265097
malc...@peri.co.uk
www.peri.co.uk


-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: 16 May 2013 13:21
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: "For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record
the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the
preferred title for the Bible."

Is my interpretation correct that "Authorized Version" here is not meant in
a general sense of "some standard version", but rather as a reference to a
specific English version of the Bible, namely the King James Bible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version

I'm asking because I've just noticed that "of the Authorized Version" 
has been translated into German as "der autorisierten Version" (i.e. "of the
authorized version", in a general descriptive sense, not as a specific
title). This makes it sound as if it was some unspecified, somehow
authorized version, which doesn't sound right to me. Also, it wouldn't be
helpful as it doesn't tell us who is supposed to do the authorizing (the
agency?) and according to which criteria.

The French, on the other hand, seem to have deliberately - and, I'd say,
very reasonably - changed the meaning: "Pour les livres du canon catholique
ou protestant, enregistrer une forme brève du titre du livre consacré par
l'usage en français comme subdivision du titre privilégié de la Bible." So,
they explicitly state that the title of the book should follow French usage.

I think 6.23.2.9.2 should be adapted to make it really "international", e.g.
by saying "record the title of the book according to a standard version of
the Bible in the language and script preferred by the agency".

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

[James Weinheimer]

On 16/05/2013 14:21, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:

> RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: "For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon,
> record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a
> subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible."
>
> Is my interpretation correct that "Authorized Version" here is not
> meant in a general sense of "some standard version", but rather as a
> reference to a specific English version of the Bible, namely the King
> James Bible?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version


You may find the Biblical Cataloging Manual at Princeton useful:
http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/katmandu/bible/bibltoc.html

Page about versions of the Bible:
http://library.princeton.edu/departments/tsd/katmandu/bible/versions.html

-- 
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html

[RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2)

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: "For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, 
record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a 
subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible."


Is my interpretation correct that "Authorized Version" here is not meant 
in a general sense of "some standard version", but rather as a reference 
to a specific English version of the Bible, namely the King James Bible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version

I'm asking because I've just noticed that "of the Authorized Version" 
has been translated into German as "der autorisierten Version" (i.e. "of 
the authorized version", in a general descriptive sense, not as a 
specific title). This makes it sound as if it was some unspecified, 
somehow authorized version, which doesn't sound right to me. Also, it 
wouldn't be helpful as it doesn't tell us who is supposed to do the 
authorizing (the agency?) and according to which criteria.


The French, on the other hand, seem to have deliberately - and, I'd say, 
very reasonably - changed the meaning: "Pour les livres du canon 
catholique ou protestant, enregistrer une forme brève du titre du livre 
consacré par l'usage en français comme subdivision du titre privilégié 
de la Bible." So, they explicitly state that the title of the book 
should follow French usage.


I think 6.23.2.9.2 should be adapted to make it really "international", 
e.g. by saying "record the title of the book according to a standard 
version of the Bible in the language and script preferred by the agency".


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Cambridge University RDA materials

[Bernhard Eversberg]

15.05.2013 14:44, C.J. Carty:

The Cambridge RDA Steering Group is pleased to announce that it is
making available all of its RDA documentation and training materials
under a Creative Commons CC-BY licence for anyone to reuse or adapt. Our
intranet is not publicly accessible so we have created a separate
website for this documentation:

http://cambridgerda.wordpress.com/


Thank you very much for making this material available, and at no cost!
It is all excellently done and can certainly be usefully employed in
many places.

I'd like to draw attention first to the two-part presentation for 
non-catalogers:


  http://cambridgerda.wordpress.com/misc/#noncat

This raises a few thoughts, however:

-- The non-cataloger will be interested a lot more in the A aspects
   than in the D aspects of the new records. How, in other words,
   does RDA improve the "find" tasks of the catalog user? The only
   relevant point in the presentation is the disappearance of the rule
   of three. The rest does little more than assist in the "identify"
   task, and not really enormously much. The non-cataloger might thus
   wonder if all this requires a new cataloging code.

-- While, at the end, part 2 points out that RDA will increase
   visibility and usability of catalogs on the Web, the non-cataloger
   is left wondering how this can happen when at the same time it
   is also stressed that RDA records are compatible with AACR2
   and can co-exist with older MARC21 records.

On the whole, I'm not sure many non-catalogers will go away from this
presentation mightily impressed and eager to experience the new
benefits in their day-to-day work.
Among the non-catalogers, there might well be administrative staff.
I just wonder how they come away from it when thinking about the
expenditures for this revolution.

The presentations on "Authorised Access Points" :
   http://cambridgerda.wordpress.com/misc/#aap
do state, early on, that there is a change in terminology from
"Headings" to "Authorised  Access Points" (AAP). No reason is given.
Although it is here that the A, the by far most important aspect of
RDA, is coming into its own. A large number of detail is being dealt
with in these presentations, but it is all based on the outdated
technology of having "headings" (by whatever name) as textual strings
in the bib records. This, above all, should change in the course of
an RDA transition that would be worthwile. But of course, Cambridge
or anyone else using Voyager could not do that on their own.
It should, however, be good to point out that there is an international
collaboration effort, VIAF, that is supposed to greatly improve across-
the-border searching and opac Access. But well, it has been doing so
all the while with no RDA records to this date ...


B.Eversberg