Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
Who does the removing? In our workflow, LC copy goes through a quick cataloging process in Acquisitions Rapic Cataloging Division, and never sees the eyes of complex copy or original cataloger. That is, most of these records are processed either by machine or by student workers. Do you go back and find them later and delete them? In any case, that would not work for us because our catalog records are based on the master record in OCLC and whatever is there is the data that comes into our shared consortial catalog. Any changes made by anyone in OCLC to a record we have holdings on will be propagated into our consortial catalog, so to get rid of CCTs we'd have to delete them in the OCLC master record, and should someone put them back in, we'd get them right back. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Adger Williams wrote: Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 08:37:18 -0500 From: Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles Aren't conventional collective titles really Form/Genre headings? (Poems. Selections, vs. Essays Selections, vs. Works Selections) Would they not serve their function less confusingly if we treated them that way? FWIW, my institution has been removed CCTs from LC records ever since the abandonment of the AACR2 rule about distinctive titles. Very seldom does it require more than a moment's thought. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.dewrote: Am 20.12.2013 13:37, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenm?ller: I think the interesting point to note is that not everything which consists of several works by the same person is in fact a compilation of works. Rather, in the case of... This is the sort of casuistry we've never envied AACR users for. Let's get serious about the A aspect in RDA and treat titles as such, as titles, always, because end-users will always search for those titles because they find them cited as such, and noch concocted and perturbed in ways they'd never imagine. Add conventional collected titles at leisure (if you find any), or rather use machine-actionable codes wherever possible, but leave the titles alone. If we can't get away from the old spirit of cataloging that was based on unit descriptions on 3x5 cards and on filing rules that were not even part of AACR, then RDA is really a waste of time and will create more nuisance than usefulness. B.Eversberg To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
I've asked just this question on the PCC list, since the policy statement that covers this is labeled LC practice. So far I've only heard back from a few libraries, but they are following LC practice. Which makes sense when you consider that much of the copy for cataloging that we get comes from LC, and we don't have the staffing to redo what they do. Therefore we will be getting and accepting many records that have these conventional collective titles, and any original cataloging records that we might create according to a different local practice would be just a drop in the bucket of all the records in our catalog. Adam On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Heidrun Wiesenm?ller wrote: Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:08:42 +0100 From: Heidrun Wiesenm?ller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles Adam, These examples all seem to follow LC's interpretation of the first sentence of RDA 6.2.2.10, i.e. none of these collections was treated as being known under its own title. So, is it correct to assume that LC's rather extreme interpretation (that a collection can only become known by its own title over the course of time) is at present widely followed, although Kevin Randall and others have raised objections? I've noticed that in the NACO training module 6 http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/courses/naco-RDA/Module%206-Describing%20Works%20and%20Expressions.pptx there is no detailed explanation of how the first sentence of RDA 6.2.2.10 is to be understood (slide 38). So I'm not sure whether all PCC libraries follow LC's practice here. Heidrun Adam L. Schiff wrote: Nicephorus, $c Blemmydes, $d 1197-1272. $t Works. $k Selections (Oeuvres theologiques) Rupert, $c of Deutz, $d approximately 1075-1129. $t Works. $k Selections (Opera apologetica) Talmage, James E. $q (James Edward), $d 1862-1933. $t Works. $k Selections (Beginner's guide to Talmage) William, $c of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris, $d 1180-1249. $t Works. $k Selections (Opera homiletica) Council of Trent $d (1545-1563 : $c Trento, Italy). $t Works. $k Selections (Documentos ineditos tridentinos sobre la justificacion) Smith, Joseph, $c Jr., $d 1805-1844. $t Works. $k Selections (Personal writings of Joseph Smith) Smith, Joseph, $c Jr., $d 1805-1844. $t Works. $k Selections (Essential Joseph Smith) Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
The corporate body is the creator of the work. The relationship designator would either be author or if you preferred to use the element name (see the PCC guidelines on relationship designators), creator. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Sat, 30 Nov 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote: Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 02:18:20 + From: Wilson, Pete pete.wil...@vanderbilt.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an exhibition catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum. The museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the art involved. What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 100 for the museum? Is it just author? Thanks! Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Neither an issuing body nor a host institution is a creator in RDA, so using those relationship
designators in 110 fields is not correct. Works are not named by combining the authorized access
point for issuing body or host institution with the preferred title for the work. To be a 110, the
corporate body must be a creator. Choose from the relationship designators for creators and if
there isn't an appropriate one there (I think author is perfectly fine and allowable
for corporate bodies and families as well as persons), then use the element name, in this case
creator.
Adam Schiff
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:23:35 -0800
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Pete Wilson asked:
Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an exhibition=
n catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum=
. The museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the ar=
t involved. What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 100 fo=
r the museum?
Most exhibition catalogues of a single artist are entered under artist.
We use $eartist.
In the rare instance of an exhibition catalogue entered under the
museum (which would be 110 not 100), we use $ehost institution in the
absence of anything really appropriate. Another possibility is
$eissuing body.
We only use $eauthor for persons. At an IFLA meet, an European
cataloguer sniffed at me and said corporate bodies don't write books,
people do. There is a certain truth to that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote: Ricardo All you are doing with 372 Punk rock music, is expressing that the person has that field of activity. It's the 374 that tells you their occupation, in relation to that field: 372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh 372 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh or 372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh 372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh and of course you can put more than one thing in 372: 372 $a Punk rock $a Musical criticism $2 lcsh 372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk 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 Santos Muñoz, Ricardo Sent: 14 November 2013 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hello again. I'm wrangling with some of the 3xx fields for authority records, in order to produce some policy for using some of them in a coherent and fruitful way. I'm facing some problems, and neither the MARC field itself, nor RDA instructions, nor the use I've seen out there gives me a clear view. The main bump in the road is field 372. Let's say I'm working on Joseph Stalin. I'd like record and retrieve him as a politician (374), as a member of Communist Party of the Soviet Union (373), but I'd like to relate him with communism. So, recording Communism in 372 seems perfect for that purpose. But I would also record Comunism in 372 for a scholar historian on communism. Summing up, if I record 372 Punk-rock, Am I expressing that the guy is a musician (374), specialized in doing punk-rock music, or Am I indicating that he/she is a music critic (374), expert on punk-rock music? Thanks in advance for opinions and experiencies. Ricardo Santos Muñoz Depto. de Proceso Técnico Biblioteca Nacional de España Tfno.: 915 807 735 ** Experience the British Library online at www.bl.ukhttp://www.bl.uk/ The British Library's latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.htmlhttp://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabookhttp://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmas...@bl.ukmailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne, If there isn't a good match, just don't record a relationship designator. Or if you can determine that a new designator is needed and what that would be, submit one for the JSC to consider (via the web form on the PCC website if you are a PCC library, or to the Cataloging Committee: Description and Access (CC:DA) of ALA). But in either case, don't agonize over this and spend an inordinate amount of time. Adam Schiff On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger wrote: Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:12:19 -0600 From: Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator Colleagues, Would you please inform me what the appropriate relationship designator would be for the following based on the 245 field below? 245 10 |a Natural History Museum book of animal records : ?b thousands of amazing facts and unbelievable feats / |c Mark Carwardine. The Natural History Museum holds the copyright. I have reviewed Sections 6.18-19 and Appendix I in the RDA Toolkit for good examples and may be overlooking a perfect match. 710 2 |a Natural History Museum (London, England), |e issuing body (?) Thank you. *Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us mailto:lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us Description: library logo color white backgroundSMALL * ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
If there is no appropriate term in RDA, you certainly may use a controlled term from another list. The problem in MARC is that we cannot specify what controlled list these terms come from. Adam Schiff On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger wrote: Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:07:47 -0600 From: Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator J. McRee Elrod wrote: Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b. The 264 field appears as: 264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013. In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point) without any relationship designator even though the Natural History Museum holds the copyright and appears in the title? I found the term copyright holder [cph] in the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) , but am I correct in my understanding that we should avoid using these terms in RDA bib records if possible? *Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us mailto:lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us Description: library logo color white backgroundSMALL* ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
That would be a naughty designator rather than an inappropriate one!
It's way before Friday for humor, isn't it? ;0)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:29:48 +
From: Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Like one that would be used for a particular work by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I
suppose?
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Wagstaff, D John
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Can anyone point me to an inappropriate relationship designator? That
sounds a lot more fun...
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)
John
John Wagstaff
Head, Music Performing Arts Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel. 217-244-4070
e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point)
without any relationship designator even though the Natural History
Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another poster
has advised that if no exact term works, use the larger category. even if
not the the lists. (The MRIs add those categories to its list.) In this case
you might consider $ecreator. The body has a more important
relationship to the item than just holding the copyright.
You are right, I think, that the terms from the $4 code list should not be
used in $e. You could use the $4 code, but as I said, the relationship is
larger and more important than just copyright holder, so I would not.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] Location or venue needed as RDA relationship designator
I haven't had the need for one of these myself, but host institution
seems fine to me. A gallery is certainly a corporate body, hence, an
institution of some kind.
Adam
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:22:08 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Location or venue needed as RDA relationship designator
SLC feels the need for location or venue as a relationship
designator, to use for venues such as galleries where an exhibition is
held, theatres and concert halls where performances are held.
Currently we are using host institution, but I suspect most don't
this of galleries, theatres, and concert halls as institutions.
Since venues may not have published the item issuing body can not
always be used.
What relationship designator are others using for venues?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records
Some of these prizes that you mention are for a specific work, and information about the prize could/should go in the work authority record. It would be recorded in the history of the work note (MARC 678). If the information were meant to be more searchable and retrievable than can be done with a 678 note, then I think we would need a new field in the authority format, along the lines of the 586 field that we have in the bibliographic format. It could have subfields for a) name of award b) year of award c) other information and probably a subfield $2 for the source of the term used in $a if a controlled form were used. It could be used on a record for a work or for a record for person/family/corporate body. For example: 100 1_ $a Catton, Eleanor, $d 1985- $t Luminaries 3XX$a Man Booker Prize $b 2013 $2 lcsh 130 _0 $a Argo (Motion picture) 3XX$a Academy Award $b 2013 $c Best Picture 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 3XX$a Nobel Peace Prize $b 2013 3XX$a Nobel Prizes $b 2013 $c Peace $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Lawrence, Jennifer, $d 1990- 3XX$a Academy Award $b 2013 $c Best Actress, in Silver linings playbook I suppose even if this information is not covered in FRAD or RDA, someone could still make a MARC proposal to establish a field and subfields for the information. I should also point out that newly established field 386 for Creator/Contributor Characteristics could possibly sometimes be used for a similar purpose. Right now the field has been limited in scope to works and expressions: In title or name/title authority records, a category to which a creator(s) or contributor(s) to a work belongs. But the original proposal did discuss the possibility of using it for persons or other group 2 entities as well. An example could be: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 386$a Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 386$a Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh Adam Schiff ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Santos Mu?oz, Ricardo wrote: Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:27:42 + From: Santos Mu?oz, Ricardo ricardo.san...@bne.es Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records Hello, I think it could be interesting to record, in Persons authority records, that a given author has been winner of a prize, such a Nobel, Booker, Pulitzer. Retrieving and grouping authors winners of a given prize can be of interest for users, although maybe is not an attribute essential for identification purposes, and not indeed as an addition to access points. Such an attribute is not in FRAD, thus, it is not in RDA, thus, it is not in MARC. Field 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body) seems not to fit here. Any idea? Or maybe is it not such an interesting piece of data to record? Ricardo Santos Mu?oz Depto. de Proceso T?cnico Biblioteca Nacional de Espa?a Tfno.: 915 807 735 ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain
Carrying that forward with RDA in MARC is a problem because one can't make Person-to-Work relationships outside of a bibliographic record. Authority records make Person-to-Person relationships and Work-to-Work relationships (with some flexibility, such as person-to-corporate body, for example musical group members, etc.). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library Thomas, Person to work and person to expression relationships are now regularly being made in authority records. Robert Maxwell has been a big proponent of them, but many NACO libraries are doing this now. See for example these authorities: no2012088804 100 1_ Card, Orson Scott. $t Ender's game. $l Portuguese $s (Angelo) 500 1_ $i Translator: $a Angelo, Carlos $w r no2012084450 100 1_ Tolstoy, Leo, $c graf, $d 1828-1910. $t Anna Karenina. $l English $s (Wiener) 500 1_ $i Translator: $a Wiener, Leo, $d 1862-1939 $w r no2013104854 130 _0 Bananas (Motion picture : 1971) 500 1_ $i Film director: $a Allen, Woody, $d 1935- $w r 500 1_ $i Screenwriter: $a Allen, Woody, $d 1935- $w r 500 1_ $i Screenwriter: $a Rose, Mickey $w r no2013058353 130 _0 Moon pilot (Motion picture) 500 1_ $i Film director: $a Neilson, James, $d 1918-1979 $w r 500 1_ $i Film producer: $a Disney, Walt, $d 1901-1966 $w r 510 2_ $i Production company: $a Walt Disney Productions $w r no2013000111 100 1_ Boismortier, Joseph Bodin de, $d 1689-1755. $t Sonatas, $m flutes (3), continuo, $n op. 34. $n No. 1; $o arranged $s (Dassonville) 500 1_ $i Arranger of music: $a Dassonville, Jean-Christophe $w r no2013063173 100 1_ Lauper, Cyndi, $d 1953- $t Kinky boots 500 1_ $i Composer: $a Lauper, Cyndi, $d 1953- $w r 500 1_ $i Lyricist: $a Lauper, Cyndi, $d 1953- $w r 500 1_ $i Librettist: $a Fierstein, Harvey, $d 1954- $w r In OCLC Connexion, you can do a keyword search of the authority file using the Relationship (rx:) index. If you search on the designator translator you get 1,262 records. This is the most common designator being used in the 5XX fields as best as I can tell. But as can be seen above, others are also being used. Adam Schiff ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
[RDA-L] Friday afternoon humor
Just had to share this record I happened to stumble on this afternoon. Could this be the height of stupidity?: OCLC #851563377 110 2_ Original Broadway Cast. 245 10 Kinky boots $h [sound recording] / $c Original Broadway Cast. 300[United States] : $b Masterworks Broadway, $c 2013. 511 1 Cyndi Lauper. Cyndi Lauper was the composer of this musical; she isn't a performer on the recording. But the 110 has just got to be the most precious and erroneously made up corporate body I've seen in a long time! I've reported it to OCLC to clean up. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
What is really missing from that LC record is this subject heading (which should probably have been created): 650 _0 Pawnee (Ind. : Imaginary place) The only subject heading there is 630 00 Parks and recreation (Television program), and I don't think this books is ABOUT the television program. Adam Schiff ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Arakawa, Steven wrote: Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 17:54:34 + From: Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) When training, I like to use the LC cataloging for ISBN 9781401310646 (LCCN 2011015148). The record was cataloged following AACR2, but it?s easy to see how a fictitious character AAP would be used in RDA. This is clearly not a pseudonym situation. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I must thank Mac and others for taking time to explain to me RDA's decision to treat ALL fictitious characters equally, Nevertheless, I also have much less difficulty accepting the change from Clemens to Twain than accepting the authorship of Pooh, $c the Bear; or Snoopy, $c the Dog; or Kermit, $c the Frog. While one may just dress less formally, to have a bear, a dog, or a frog utter anything but growls, and groans, is hard to grasp. Perhaps the relationship designator of $e author should here be changed to $e Dubious author, or perhaps $e attributed name, or $e Pretended author. Perhaps $c (fictional non-person), $c (fictional animal) can be added to $c (fictional character). It is less likely the patron will fail to associate Milnes with Pooh, or Schultz with Snoopy, or know that Kermit is just a puppet from previous encounters with similar books, than to accept, or assume that Pooh, Snoopy, and Kermit actually wrote anything . Such pretense will not make catalogers, cataloging, or the cataloging code more intelligent or more intelligible than they are not. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
If it is the same work, then you have to decide what the preferred title of the work is, and if it is not the same as the manifestation you have in hand, then you would add a 240 for the preferred title (or 130 if no creator(s)). No relationship designator is needed. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Ann Ryan wrote: Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:25:55 +1300 From: Ann Ryan a...@wheelers.co.nz To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work What relationship designator are people using for retitled works? This is one of the most common relationships that we deal with: Originally published as: The book in hand: Traveller's French by Elisabeth Smith. London : Hodder Stoughton, 2013. Originally published as: Teach yourself instant French. Great Britain. Hodder Education, 1998. 9781444193046 Looking at appendix J in the RDA toolkit - I'm unable to find any relationship designator which seems to reflect this relationship accurately. I've added the Author/title added entry (as usual), but am really struggling with finding/adding an i subfield to reflect the relationship between the two works. What are other people using in this situation? Regards Ann Ann Ryan Cataloguer Wheelers Auckland, NZ a...@wheelers.co.nz ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
-human entities from LCSH will be conducted as resources are available. Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu 10/11/2013 1:39 PM Yes that is true, at least for all newly established characters. LC will (slowly, I imagine) undertake a project to convert their LCSH headings for ficititious characters to name authorities. NACO libraries will establish them as well as needed and report existing LCSH terms for cancellation. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Gray-Williams, Donna Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:57 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I can't use RDA yet, so I wasn't paying initial attention to this discussion. I understood that a fictitious character as author would now be in a 100 field, but now it sounds like all fictitious characters are to be treated like real people and placed in the 600 field as well. Is that the case? Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] question about supplying/devising other title information
I almost agree with Mac here. But if you decide to do it it should only
be done in your local copy of the record, not in any master record that
you contribute to OCLC and code RDA. Shared records in OCLC should adhere
to the standards that we use. Or catalog the record in AACR2 if you must
have the supplied explanation.
**
* Adam L. Schiff *
* Principal Cataloger*
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 *
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* asch...@u.washington.edu *
**
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:39:09 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about supplying/devising other title information
Linda Dausch quoted AACR2:
If the title proper needs explanation, supply a brief addition as
other title information, in the language of the title proper.
Margaret Mann's example was Fire [poems] I seem to recall, long
before AACR2. This is a time honoured practice.
I have a program for an ice skating revue tour and was wondering
about supplying the term [program] as other title information.
You are correct, I think, in interpreting RDA not to provide this, to
make it easier to use harvested data without change I've been told.
I find adding a note more work than supplying the one word.
Those added words will be in Bibframe from MARC crosswalk, so I would
say this is a good instance for jury nullification in the interest of
consistency with legacy records, very long standing practice, and
patron convenience. A note does not show up in brief display. Do it.
Anyone who uses your record and doesn't like it, can remove it, and do
their own note.
I don't expect many to agree with me on this. RDA makes too many
concessions to using harvested data, e.g., allowing non standard
capitalization.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Steven, Yes, probably, unless we agree not to always provide an work access point for the compilation itself. We have already basically agreed not to do that for compilations of works by different entities without a collective title (6.27.1.4 alternative, where LC/PCC decision is not to apply the alternative; you would only apply it probably if you need to reference the compilation when cataloging some other resource). In the interim, the title proper of the first resource in the manifestation represents the compilation as a whole (probably not such a useful thing). Maybe we only give AAP for compilations by different persons, families, corporate bodies in which no individual analytic access points are being made (e.g., collection of poems or essays or articles by various authors)? And then in other cases, if the compilations needs to be referenced elsewhere (as a related work or subject) then retrospectively we go back and differentiate that compilation if its title is the same as another work whose AAP would also just be a title. Just thinking out loud Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Arakawa, Steven wrote: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 21:54:08 + From: Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Adam, that makes sense, but we still end up with an additional AAP (and an authority record?) in whichever tag, don't we? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 3:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven, If all work/expression AAPs are entered in 7XX, then there would not be a 130 either. Those would become 730s. I think Kevin is correct that each record would start with 245, with no 1XXs at all. So for you compilation of selections of two poets' works, if the compilation title wasn't unique, in addition to the two 700s for the two poets' selected works, you would have a 730 for the compilation as a work (if that is judged necessary at all). The choice of qualifier is up to the cataloger. You suggested the name of the publisher, as in Sea (Vanity Press). But it could just have easily been something like Sea (Poetry anthology : 2005) or many other formulations. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 6:18 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? And if pcc requires an AR for the 130, that would mean more authority work or, more likely, fewer bib records coded as pcc. Also, given the number of potential title conflicts in OCLC, it might be better practice to make the 130 with qualifier mandatory rather than to expend time and energy searching for conflicting titles. In current practice, the relationship designator is not used with a/t analytics. If 700 a/t is used exclusively, I could see some indexing and display problems in current MARC based systems, whether it is inserted between $a and $t or after $t. If, however, the thinking is that with a 700 a/t AAP the creator-work/expression relationship is clearly defined w/out the designator, that would mean one less thing to do, so that would be a plus. With a better mark-up system based on BibFrame, the MARC limitations could be overcome, but trying to do this in the MARC environment may be more trouble than it's worth. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. You wouldn't believe how tickled I am to see you make this argument! This is much more in line with the FRBR WEMI concepts, and really should be the direction we end up moving in. And in this approach, the 100 field for the creator would not only be unnecessary, it would have no basis in the RDA guidelines. The 245 field is describing the *manifestation*, and the creator relationship is with the *work*. (This makes me think about all of the times people have argued that main entry isn't needed in online catalogs. I think those arguments didn't make sense in the contemporary context; but in the future, when we have metadata specific to the various WEMI entities, the what-we've-traditionally-called-main-entry concept won't apply at the manifestation level--it will only be at the work level, per RDA chapter 19. Hopefully, catalogers will start out describing *manifestations*, and then link those descriptions up to the expressions/works that are involved.) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
[RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
I'm wondering what the collective wisdom is regarding providing a variant access point in bibliographic records to the portion of a title proper that precedes an alternative title. As you all are probably aware, in RDA an alternative title is treated as part of the title proper (2.3.2.1), but not as part of the preferred title of a work (6.2.2.4). Therefore whenever you have a resource with an alternative title, a 130 or 240 is needed in addition to the 245 title proper. For example: 100 1_ Owens, Jo, $d 1961- 240 10 Add kids, stir briskly 245 10 Add kids, stir briskly, or, How I learned to love my life / $c Jo Owens. Now the question I have is, given that the 240 that would be required in an RDA record for this resource (because you have to name the work manifested in this resource)**, would one or two variant title 246s be required?: 246 30 Add kids, stir briskly 246 30 How I learned to love my life Or would only the second 246 for the alternative title suffice in an RDA record? ** I realize that instead of the 240 a 700 related work access point could be given: 700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. If this approach is taken, would there be any difference in how many variant title 246s are made? --Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Names found in a non-preferred script (8.4 vs. 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12)
I recently taught at RDA at the National Library of Israel. They do not have a single preferred script, nor a single language of cataloging. In fact they have four: Hebrew, Arabic, roman, and Cyrillic. Depending on the script of the resource they are cataloging, they will use an authorized access point in that script and the language of cataloging will depend on the language of the resource. They have a unique authority record structure which uses a single record with multiple 1XXs for the authorized form in different scripts. If I've misstated any of this and someone from NLI is reading, please feel free to correct and elaborate on this! Adam Schiff ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Heidrun Wiesenm?ller wrote: Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 19:15:25 +0200 From: Heidrun Wiesenm?ller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Names found in a non-preferred script (8.4 vs. 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12) John, As I understand it, 8.4 is under general guidelines and is about recording names. It doesn't say whether they are in a statement of responsibility or a preferred name or access point or whatever. Now this discussion is getting really interesting... Disagreeing with you makes me feel decidedly uncomfortable, but in my understanding, the whole of chapter 8 belongs under the heading Recording attributes of person, family, corporate body, i.e. we're in the area of the group 2 entities and their attributes here. Of course I agree that names also appear as part of statements of responsibility, but I believe that the relevant rule for this case belongs to section 1, namely 1.4: Record the following elements in the language and script in which they appear on the sources from which they are taken: (...) Statement of responsibility (...). RDA assumes that a library will have a preferred language and script based on the needs of its users. A library in the United States will prefer Latin script, a library in Russia will prefer Cyrillic, and a library in China will prefer Chinese script. Of course, people will come up with hundreds of exceptions, but that seems to be the general idea. I suppose it's possible that an agency could prefer all scripts. Well, yes, admittedly the idea of preferring _all_ scripts is a bit of an oxymoron (although I found it rather clever). Maybe it would be better to say: Although the library does have a preferred script (and uses this in certain areas), it has decided not to use it for the preferred name of a person, instead always recording the preferred name in the original script (as it is found in the preferred source of information of the resource). I still think that this is the basic rule expressed in 8.4. Of course, names in foreign scripts can also appear in other places and will then be recorded as variant names. This seems to be also covered in this rule, as it is about names in general. In Germany, we have started using original scripts not so long ago, and not all systems can work with them. So we're still at an early stage. But using original scripts certainly is a general aim in the description of bibliographic entities here, although I'm sure that we'll always provide a transliterated version as well (because indeed not all users will be happy with a form in an original script). In my understanding, the use of original scripts for certain elements is also a fundamental aim of RDA, and that's why the basic rules in 1.4, 5.4 and 8.4 look like they do. True, most libraries will probably follow the alternative of using a transliterated form instead of the original script at least for the foreseeable future. But as this practice is ranked as an alternative, my interpreation is that the real intention of RDA is moving to original script cataloging. I think the provision for variant names in 9.2.2.5.3 stands on its own. Follow the reference to 9.2.3.9 and you see several examples of variant names recorded in different scripts. Sorry, but I'm still not sure about that one. Thanks for pointing me to 9.2.3.9. I think this is the general rule of recording forms which differ in script from the one recorded as the preferred name. But why should that rule be doubled in 9.2.2.5.3? I'd still say 9.2.2.5.3 covers a fairly special situation where you have to choose between several transliterated forms (not knowing the one which you should use according to your scheme). Then it says
Re: [RDA-L] Additional JSC response documents
Regarding the 6JSC/BL/13/LC response at http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-13-LC-response.pdf, please note a typo in the first example on page 8: Puymaigre, Th. de, (Theodore), comte There should not be a comma after de. I also continue to have concerns that the current text nor the proposed revisions deal with the very common issue of fictitious characters that have same preferred name. I would like to see RDA address this somewhere. Under RDA it is not clear whether 9.6.1.7 or 9.6.1.9 is applicable in such a case. For example, some PCC libraries are contributing records to the LC/NACO Authority File like this one: 100 0_ Bean $c (Fictitious character from Card) Does the qualifier Fictitious character from Card fall under another appropriate designation from 9.6.1.7 or does it fall under 9.6.1.9? 9.6.1.9 is limited to use when non of the five attributes listed there are sufficient or appropriate for distinguishing two or more persons with the same name. None of those five attributes includes the designation for fictitious and legendary persons, and yet that designation is equally appropriate for two fictitious persons with the same name. It seems to me therefore that for two fictitious persons who would otherwise have the same access point, RDA tells you to record two attributes: 1) Fictitious character, etc. from 9.6.1.7. 2) An other designation to further distinguish the persons, from 9.6.1.9. That other designation could be the surname or name of the creator of the character, or perhaps something else, but would the additions be made like this?: Bean (Fictitious character) (Card) Bean (Fictitious character) (Barrows) (and how would this be coded in MARC, with two $c's or one?) If 9.6.1.7 is not appropriate in a situation like the one above, then I think RDA needs to say so and indicate that 9.6.1.9 would be applicable instead and an example should be provided to show that. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, JSC Secretary wrote: Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 07:50:08 -0500 From: JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org To: clement.arsena...@umontreal.ca clement.arsena...@umontreal.ca, gcamp...@uwo.ca gcamp...@uwo.ca, Anders Cato anders.c...@btj.se, jw...@cam.ac.uk jw...@cam.ac.uk, ala-c...@ala.org ala-c...@ala.org, ru...@ala.org ru...@ala.org, a...@loc.gov a...@loc.gov, mary curran mgcur...@uottawa.ca, Elena Escolano Rodriguez eesc...@oc.mde.es, Graeme Forbes g.for...@nls.uk, gale...@vatlib.it gale...@vatlib.it, Massimo Gentili-Tedeschi massimo.gentilitedes...@beniculturali.it, Mary Ghikas mghi...@ala.org, r.goem...@dnb.de r.goem...@dnb.de, Ben Gu b...@nlc.gov.cn, bg...@yahoo.com bg...@yahoo.com, Tuula Haapam?ki tuula.haapam...@helsinki.fi, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edu, lynne.howa...@utoronto.ca lynne.howa...@utoronto.ca, stuart.h...@warwick.ac.uk stuart.h...@warwick.ac.uk, galen.jo...@llgc.org.uk galen.jo...@llgc.org.uk, kartu...@gmail.com kartu...@gmail.com, kas...@rsl.ru kas...@rsl.ru, irena.kav...@nuk.uni-lj.si irena.kav...@nuk.uni-lj.si, caroline.k...@bl.uk caroline.k...@bl.uk, F. Tim Knight tkni...@osgoode.yorku.ca, Fran?oise Leresche francoise.leres...@bnf.fr, dmcga...@library.ucla.edu dmcga...@library.ucla.edu, n.nichol...@nls.uk n.nichol...@nls.uk, a.o-br...@lboro.ac.uk a.o-br...@lboro.ac.uk, Christine Oliver chris.oli...@mcgill.ca, daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca, patt...@oclc.org patt...@oclc.org, patricia.r...@banq.qc.ca patricia.r...@banq.qc.ca, claire.r...@bl.uk claire.r...@bl.uk, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu, a...@loc.gov a...@loc.gov, j.tomlin...@wellcome.ac.uk j.tomlin...@wellcome.ac.uk, rwa...@nla.gov.au rwa...@nla.gov.au, sharry.wat...@gov.ab.ca sharry.wat...@gov.ab.ca, jay_we...@oclc.org jay_we...@oclc.org, Mirna Willer mwil...@unizd.hr, jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk, k...@loc.gov k...@loc.gov, Hanne H?rl Hansen h...@dbc.dk, laura.pet...@kb.nl laura.pet...@kb.nl, jstep...@nla.gov.au jstep...@nla.gov.au, d.we...@curtin.edu.au d.we...@curtin.edu.au, George Prager prag...@exchange.law.nyu.edu, a.krawal...@dnb.de a.krawal...@dnb.de, pam.cole...@bl.uk pam.cole...@bl.uk, Gryspeerdt, Katharine katharine.gryspee...@bl.uk, peter_ro...@hms.harvard.edu peter_ro...@hms.harvard.edu, laura@parl.gc.ca laura@parl.gc.ca, alison.harding-hl...@bac-lac.gc.ca, kimberly-anne.do...@bac-lac.gc.ca
Re: [RDA-L] Questions for videodisc reproduction of videocassette
Actually, after I left work last night, I thought of reproducer too -
it's succinct and leaves no doubt about the function either. I'm with Mac
on this one!
Adam
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:59:17 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Questions for videodisc reproduction of videocassette
Deborah Fritz said:
But, can anyone think of a better designator to propose than 'producer of
reproduction'?
We prefer one word terms, e.g., reproducer, manufacturer.
we like to have as much as possible seen in one line hitlists.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
[RDA-L] Punctuation at end of 250 field
Hi all, I've got a question regarding ending punctuation in the 250 field. RDA D.1.2.1 indicates that in ISBD display, an full stop would be added after an edition statement, even if the statement ends in an abbreviation: 3rd ed.. -- not 3rd ed. -- LC-PCC Policy Statement for 1.7.1 says: If either field 245 or 250 does not end in a period, add one. Am I correct in my thinking that the implication of this policy statement is that if an edition statement ends in an abbreviation, a second period would NOT be added? In other words, which of the following is expected in a PCC record?: 250 ## $a 3rd ed.. or 250 ## $a 3rd ed. [Note: the examples are predicated on the abbreviation being found and transcribed as is from the resource]. Thanks, Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Questions for videodisc reproduction of videocassette
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013, Deborah Fritz wrote: But, can anyone think of a better designator to propose than 'producer of reproduction'? agent responsible for reproduction ? reproducing entity ? entity associated with reproduction ? reproduction agent ? Just brainstorming here in my office, with sounds of screams from the Husky Stadium football fans echoing across campus. ;-) Adam Schiff ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
And now, with this announcement, there is a simple way to propose new relationship designators, at least for PCC members: The process for fast tracking PCC proposals for new and revised relationship designators has been developed. A form is posted on the PCC website http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/RD-Requests.html that allows PCC members to request new terms and to request revisions of existing terms. The form submissions are vetted by the PCC Standing Committee on Standards and passed on to the PCC liaison to CC:DA , and the ALA representative to the JSC. The link to the new form is posted on the PCC home page under the What's new section, as a link within the PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx, and on the Post RDA Implementation Guidelines and Standards http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Post-RDA-Implementation-Guidelines.html web page. Questions about the form may be directed to: c...@loc.gov mailto:c...@loc.gov On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:58:41 -0400 From: Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts Also getting into new territory for me, would the RDA Manuscript-related elements (RDA 3.9.2) apply for a single cataloged print-out of a published electronic resource? Production Method for Manuscript: printout Scratch that idea. Better to apply the basic RDA concept of choosing the right kind of element-- an attribute element or a relationship element. The use of printout here is as an attribute of the manifestation. Since there is a related manifestation element at play here, it's better to use printout as a relationship sub-element-- a designator in this case-- under the Related Manifestation element. Since such a designator doesn't exist yet, so it would have to be created. Printout Related Manifestation: Printout of (manifestation): Author. Title. Publication Statement of original Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
I think in RDA you would supply:
264 _1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified],
$c [date of publication not identified]
264 _3 [Place of printing] : $b [place of printing], $c [date of printing]
And then you would include a 776 field with:
776 08 $i Reproduction of (manifestation): $a Place of original publication
online : publisher of original online, date of original online.
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
asch...@uw.edu
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 23:32:23 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Deborah said:
I agree with you, Michelle--I think we might be looking at Production =
rather than Publication + Printing. I don't think you can put the =
Publication details for the original in the record for the reproduction.
The library is neither producing, publishing, nor reproducing the
material; it is printing out a published item, making no contribution
to the intellectual or artistic content. The only imprint data of
importance to the patron is who published the material and when. They
would be largely unconcerned with who printed it and when.
To enter the library as producer or publisher would be *very*
misleading.
Let's please keep in mind *why* we create bibliographic records, and
be guided by patron needs.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts (fwd)
Oops, I made an error in my 776: There would be a subfield $a for the creator
if any, followed by $t for title proper, and then $d would be where you put the
publication information about the original:
776 08 $i Reproduction of (manifestation): $a Creator if any. $t Title proper of original online. $d Place of original publication
online : publisher of original online, date of original online.
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
I think in RDA you would supply:
264 _1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified],
$c [date of publication not identified]
264 _3 [Place of printing] : $b [place of printing], $c [date of printing]
And then you would include a 776 field with:
776 08 $i Reproduction of (manifestation): $a Place of original publication
online : publisher of original online, date of original online.
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
asch...@uw.edu
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 23:32:23 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Deborah said:
I agree with you, Michelle--I think we might be looking at Production =
rather than Publication + Printing. I don't think you can put the =
Publication details for the original in the record for the reproduction.
The library is neither producing, publishing, nor reproducing the
material; it is printing out a published item, making no contribution
to the intellectual or artistic content. The only imprint data of
importance to the patron is who published the material and when. They
would be largely unconcerned with who printed it and when.
To enter the library as producer or publisher would be *very*
misleading.
Let's please keep in mind *why* we create bibliographic records, and
be guided by patron needs.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Mac,
I was speculating about what one would do if adhering strictly to RDA.
But I could be persuaded by Thomas Brenndorfer's argument that the
publisher of the printout is the agency that printed it out. I would also
be content with a decision to apply the provider-neutral guidelines in
reverse and give the publisher of the online in the publication elements.
But that would not be what RDA itself says to do.
Adam
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:38:59 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Adam said:
I think in RDA you would supply:
264 _1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not
identified], $c [date of publication not identified]
264 _3 [Place of printing] : $b [place of printing], $c [date of
printing]
But you DO know the place, publisher and date for the electronic
content. which remains the same in the printout. Who would benefit
from that erroneous space consuming 264 1?
When changing print to electronic, the Provider Neutral Standard calls
for the original print publisher in 264 1. When changing electronic
to print, the same principle should apply; the electronic imprint
should carry over. They published it. The library is just printing
it.
We very much approve of the PN standard abandoning the LCRI, and
describing what one has. The PN standard gets it right that the
publisher of the content belongs in imprint. (We add 264 2 for the
aggregator, but we seem to be alone in that. We would never
substitute the aggregator for the publisher, anymore than we would
substitute a printer for a publisher.)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets
Transcribe square brackets found on the source of information used. 2.3.1.4 Transcribe a title as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7). 1.7.3 Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source except for the following situations: a) omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element b) omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data recorded as a second or subsequent instance of the same element. Since brackets are marks of punctuation (see a nice list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation), you transcribe them as found. Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Billie Hackney wrote: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:16:24 -0700 From: Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets I have a print title with a set of square brackets embedded in the first word on the piece itself. Here are the first few words of the title: D[a]edalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill I have looked in every place in the RDA Toolkit that I can think of, and every place listed under square brackets in the index, and cannot find instructions. I am aware that in RDA, you're supposed to describe what you see, so I assume the 245b should be exactly as I see it: D[a]edalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill and I can add a 246 with: Daedalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill Is this correct? Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
Joan, The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500 From: Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date a) probable range of years *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004] b) known earliest and/or latest possible date *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003] c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date of publication not identified] :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Could someone give an example for that, please? ** ** I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication, manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate the information is taken from…. ** ** ** ** Thanks—Shahrzad ** ** Shahrzad Khosrowpour, Assistant Professor of Library Services Cataloging/Metadata Librarian Colorado State University-Pueblo *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu* * * * * * * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** Gary, If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6: If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4). Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Gary, The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this: [between 1800 and 1899?] [between 1400 and 1600?] In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2. Heidrun On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote: I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a situation like this one. If a manifestation has no date of any kind, how is that recorded? There are no dates associated with the author, so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year. I would say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a century. Thank you, Gary Oliver Abilene Christian University ** ** -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi ** ** -- 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 ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
Should be [Place of publication not identified] with the first word capitalized. But better to record a probable country and probable date if you can. At the very least you could do a [not after ...] date, e.g. [not after 2012] or [not after August 15, 2013] On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:21:44 -0600 From: Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date Then my record will have: $a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of publication not identified] And FF will read for the 1st date? Thanks-- Shahrzad -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date Joan, The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500 From: Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date a) probable range of years *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004] b) known earliest and/or latest possible date *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003] c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date of publication not identified] :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Could someone give an example for that, please? ** ** I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication, manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate the information is taken from…. ** ** ** ** Thanks—Shahrzad ** ** Shahrzad Khosrowpour, Assistant Professor of Library Services Cataloging/Metadata Librarian Colorado State University-Pueblo *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu* * * * * * * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** Gary, If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6: If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4). Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Gary, The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this: [between 1800 and 1899?] [between 1400 and 1600?] In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2. Heidrun On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote: I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a situation like this one. If a manifestation has no date of any kind, how is that recorded? There are no dates associated with the author, so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year. I would say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a century. Thank you, Gary Oliver Abilene Christian University ** ** -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi ** ** -- 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 ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:47:03 +0200 From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3 I find it really difficult to understand what is meant by some of the terms for the various kinds of illustrations in 7.15 (in German cataloging, we only distinguish four kinds of illustrations). The German RDA translation isn't much help either. So, could anybody help with my questions? 1. charts vs. graphs: I believe both are some kind of diagrams. Wikipedia distinguishes graph-based diagrams and chart-like diagrams - is that what is meant by the distinction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagram If so, is it really necesssary to distinguish this (wouldn't diagrams be good enough to cover both types)? Probably diagrams would be fine. Without looking them up, I'm not sure I could easily explain the difference either. 2. forms: Does that really refer to forms as in fill in this form, please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_(document) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_%28document%29 If so, I'm not sure I would have counted this as an illustration at all. I think it's not much different from tables containing only words and/or numbers, which we're told to ignore. Blank forms. Not meant to be filled in by the reader. These are often found in documents that show what forms were used when a survey was taken. They are often in theses or social survey results. 3. illuminations: I assume that this refers to manuscripts (or facsimiles of manuscripts), so I would use it for miniatures, decorated initials a.s.o. Is that the correct interpretation? These are handpainted illustrations found in pre-printing press manuscripts. 4. samples: Here, I must say, I'm totally at a loss. If it's used in the ordinary meaning, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(material) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_%28material%29 I find it very difficult to think of an example in the field of illustrations These are actual samples of something (e.g., samples of fabrics, lace, etc.) that are glued onto pages. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries Many thanks for your help! Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
Haha, is there a nice illustration showing medium of performance for a spirit
expression?
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, Stewart, Richard wrote:
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:12:10 -0500
From: Stewart, Richard rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
That is why I like to do RDA workshops in October. All those entities and
manifestations, and the occasional medium.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Elizabeth O'Keefe eoke...@themorgan.orgwrote:
Or to the manifestations. As illustrated in this 19th-century engraving:
http://macabremuseum.com/collections-database/spirits-and-their-manifestations-an-evening-seance-engraving/
Liz O'Keefe
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rules altogether. For
instance, we will add the Translation of note, include pagination of
bibliographies if appropriate. We do think that entries should be
justified in the description. Why? Because we have to realize that
cataloging uses very truncated, coded language for some of the entries.
Put the justifications in straightforward English informs the patron/user
more adequately, sometimes, than the formal language of our entries.
That is why I wish we could go back to the GMD; the 33X fields could be a
bit mystifying to users: text unmediated volume. Maybe we have to have a
séance to get the to mediated ones
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse
the rules without reference to patron service.
No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of
a rule, e.g., how to record '61 as a date of production, the most
important consideration it seems to me should be what produces the
most helpful record?
How anyone would think 264 0 $c'61 is better for patrons than $c1761,
$c1861, or $c1961, with or without brackets, is beyond me.
In particular situations, for particular material, the rules may even
need bending a bit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
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.
--
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3405
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 2127685680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org
Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
--
Richard A. Stewart
Cataloging Supervisor
Indian Trails Library District
355 Schoenbeck Road
Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499
USA
Tel: 847-279-2214
Fax: 847-459-4760
rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org
http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
LOL, good Friday humor, Liz.
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote:
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:01:39 -0400
From: Elizabeth O'Keefe eoke...@themorgan.org
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
Or to the manifestations. As illustrated in this 19th-century engraving:
http://macabremuseum.com/collections-database/spirits-and-their-manifestations-an-evening-seance-engraving/
Liz O'Keefe
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rules altogether. For
instance, we will add the Translation of note, include pagination of
bibliographies if appropriate. We do think that entries should be
justified in the description. Why? Because we have to realize that
cataloging uses very truncated, coded language for some of the entries.
Put the justifications in straightforward English informs the patron/user
more adequately, sometimes, than the formal language of our entries.
That is why I wish we could go back to the GMD; the 33X fields could be a
bit mystifying to users: text unmediated volume. Maybe we have to have a
séance to get the to mediated ones
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse
the rules without reference to patron service.
No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of
a rule, e.g., how to record '61 as a date of production, the most
important consideration it seems to me should be what produces the
most helpful record?
How anyone would think 264 0 $c'61 is better for patrons than $c1761,
$c1861, or $c1961, with or without brackets, is beyond me.
In particular situations, for particular material, the rules may even
need bending a bit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
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.
--
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3405
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 2127685680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org
Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree
The list of designators is a controlled list, and as best as I can say, you must use the term there as found, with the British/Canadian spelling. The records that you've found that don't are, in my opinion, incorrect. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dana Van Meter wrote: Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:33:59 -0400 From: Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree Still seeking info. on this, especially now as I see that the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) advises to use the spelling Honoree rather than Honouree. Anyone from LC or PCC know if there is anything in the works to create a PS stating to use the spelling Honoree for RDA? Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree I know there is an LC-PCC PS stating to use the American spelling of color, but don't see any such LC-PCC PS for the spelling of the relationship designator honouree. Doing a keyword search for rda and honouree in a personal name yields 282 hits in LC's catalog, but doing the same search with honoree yields 24 hits. Most of the 24 records have an 040 with only DLC in it, however many of these are In Process. We get a lot of Feschrifts at my institution, so while it appears honouree is the predominately used spelling (and indeed the spelling in RDA), I'm just wondering if anyone knows if LC or PCC has looked at the spelling of honouree and if there might be a PS in the future saying to use the spelling honoree. Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries
elsewhere. In my case Champs does appear, but it does not appear by itself with the numbering, it appears only followed by the subseries title. The way I see it, the name of the main series doesn't appear anywhere by itself, or in conjunction with both its (the main series) numbering and the subseries title, so I need to supply it in a separate 490 and in square brackets. I'm wondering if anyone would consider that the square brackets are unnecessary as Champs appears on the publication followed by the subseries title? Thanks very much for your advice. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions
700 1_ $i Contains (work): $a Estes, David. $t Anna's story. should be 700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Estes, David. $t Anna's story. The PCC recommended guidelines for use of relationship designators (http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx) say to include the relationship designator even when the MARC coding has the same or similar meaning. In this case the second indicator value 2 tells you that the thing in that field is contained within the resource described, but the coding alone can't tell you whether it is a work or an expression, so the relationship designator allows us to be more specific. Adam Schiff On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Jean Marie Taylor wrote: Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:40:26 -0400 From: Jean Marie Taylor jtay...@wrl.org Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions Hello, I just entered my first originally cataloged RDA record to OCLC and have a couple of questions if the group would be so kind to review my record. I apologize for bringing up the self-published issue again so soon after the previous discussion but here are my questions: In my record: 264 1[Place of publication not identified] : ǂb [David Estes], ǂc [2012] 264 2[North Charleston, South Carolina] : ǂb [CreateSpace] What is on the resource is: c2012 David Estes Made in the USA, Lexington, KY, 28 June 2013 Amazon has: Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (November 23, 2012) So for the publication statement I have: 264 _1 $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b [David Estes], $c [2012] The author travels all over the world so I didn't think I could use [United States]. For the distribution statement I have: 264 _2 $a [North Charleston, South Carolina] : $b [CreateSpace] I looked up the location of the corporate headquarters of CreateSpace on the Internet. [North Charleston, South Carolina] is required because the place of publication is not provided in the publication statement. Is that correct? [CreateSpace] is not technically required because there is a publisher in the 264 _1 but I wanted CreateSpace in the record. The date is not required in the 264 _2 for the same reason. Is that correct? Also, I think of CreateSpace as more of a manufacturer than a distributor (with Amazon being the distributor) but the recent discussion on the list has been referring to CreateSpace as a distributor and CreateSpace does sometimes refer to themselves as a distributor. ** The other problem is there is a long short story (41 p.) contained in the book. I made this 500 note. Includes Anna's story, a dwellers short story and an excerpt from Fire country, book 1 of The country saga. I added a 700 12 Estes, David. $t Anna's story. I consulted 25.1 and J.5.4 in RDA and the MARC mappings for the whole-part relationship information. I did see examples in the LCPS for something like this: 700 1_ $i Contains (work): $a Estes, David. $t Anna's story. but that wouldn't validate. Also the 774 can be used I think. What is the current best practice in this area? Thanks a lot for your consideration. Jean Marie Taylor Technical Services Williamsburg Regional Library ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corportate bodies
In answer to the first question, author is probably the most likely designator to use if the corporate body is a creator, but many other relationship designators in the appendix I for creators could also be used for corporate bodies. An issuing body may not be the publisher. Many journals are issued by a scholarly society but published by a commercial publisher. When the issuing body and publisher are the same, you could use two relationship designators, but so far I've just used issuing body. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Crum, Cathy (KDLA) wrote: Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 14:00:50 + From: Crum, Cathy (KDLA) cathy.c...@ky.gov Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corportate bodies Hi all, I have questions about the correct use of the relationship designators, issuing body and author, especially for corporate bodies. If a corporate body is considered the creator of a work (per RDA 19.2.1.1.1) and is recorded in the 110 of a bibliographic record, would you use the relationship designator author? RDA mentions both publishing and issuing when defining publisher's name at RDA 2.8.4, so what's the difference between publishing something and issuing something? When would you use issuing body as a relationship designator? Thanks, Cathy Crum Cathy Crum Cataloging Supervisor State Library Services Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives (502) 564-8300, ext. 227 cathy.c...@ky.govmailto:cathy.c...@ky.gov ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corportate bodies
Using issuing body in a 1XX field would not be a correct use of RDA, since issuing
bodies are not defined as creators. The only designator that I see in I.2.2 that can for sure be
used with a 1XX access point is defendant, since RDA allows you to name legal works
with a defendant's name.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:15:26 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corportate
bodies
Cathy Crum asked:
I have questions about the correct use of the relationship designators, is=
suing body and author, especially for corporate bodies.
We would limit the use of author with a corporate body, to resources
entered under the corporate body, i.e., administrative resources about
the body such as annual reports.
We plan to use issuing body for conference names, in the absence of
anything better.
We assume commercial publishers would not be issuing bodies, but
rather private and government agencies. Often the publisher differs
from the issuing body, e.g., a government publications office may be
the publisher, while an agency is the issuing body.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] Content notes
There is no specific rule for this. But the basic instructions on recording contents notes are in 24.4.3 - contents notes are a form of structured description. 25.1.1.3 has examples of contents notes, but no instructions on how to formulate them. On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Don Charuk wrote: Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:35:49 -0400 From: Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Content notes We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on how to record chapter headings as part of a 505 note. (Cataloguers want/demand specific rule numbers) We are certain it does not fall under Chapters 25, 26 and 27. We are to presume it comes under rule 7.10. but, this rule seems to address notes code in the 520 tag. Thank you Don Charuk Cataloguer Toronto Public Library ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference (fwd)
You can, per PCC guidelines, use creator if nothing else is appropriate.
However, author is what should be used in my opinion.
author A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a work
that is primarily textual in content, regardless of media type (e.g.,
printed text, spoken word, electronic text, tactile text) or genre (e.g.,
poems, novels, screenplays, blogs).
Works can include other works. A conference proceedings as a whole is a
work, and the individual papers are also works. But as an aggregate work,
I think author is applicable to the conference corporate body access
point.
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Susan Lewis asked (an SLC cataloguer):
Did we come up with something for this?
No, we still have no relationship designator for a conference, either
111 or 711. Just leave it off if we haven't one by our implementation
date August 15th? Should we consider issuing body even though they
are not always the publisher?
I don't think they can be considered author; the individual speakers
(of their TAs) wrote the papers. Also contributor does not work;
the conference received the contributions; compiler would seem to
apply to the individual editor rather than to the body.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print)
I believe in the best of worlds, large print would now only be recorded in an RDA record in 340 $n. That said, in the RDA Appendix with MARC mappings, font size is mapped to both 300 $a and 340 $n. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Arakawa, Steven wrote: In the original question, it isn't clear where (Large print) would be entered in MARC 300. In AACR2 MARC records, it is entered in 300 $a per 2.5B23, but there isn't a corresponding instruction in RDA. In RDA extent (300 $a) is limited to the number of units and subunits (3.4.1.1). Since Large print is not a subunit but a font size, how would including it as part of the extent (300 $a) be justified in RDA? Although the RDA Toolkit has a link from AACR2 2.5B23 to RDA 3.13.1.3, the instruction does not specify where to enter the Large Print information. Some MARC alternatives might be MARC 500 and/or 340. Maybe also 300 $b? Is there a similar impact on AACR2 2.5B22? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 4:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print) J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: What is core for RDA, and what is core for patron needs, are two *very* different things! AACR2 had a qualified GMD: text (large print) which worked very well. This is but one example of AACR2's superiority over RDA in terms of meeting patron needs, as opposed to conforming to theory. To be fair, AACR2's GMDs are marked as optional and don't appear at all under 1.0D's first level of description (which is on par with RDA's core cataloging--RDA for the most part follows in AACR2's footsteps). If it's a matter of why 30-some years of GMDs and AACR2 practice never resulted in more elements being added to the must have pile irrespective of levels of description, I can't say. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
[RDA-L] How would you relate these two works?
I'm trying to figure out what relationship designator to use to relate two novels, one of which is described as a spinoff for young adult readers. Here's the basic information: From http://geoffreygirard.wordpress.com/2013/02/: In September Simon Schuster will publish my first two novels at the same time. The first, Cain's Blood, is a techno thriller from Touchstone Books. The second, Project Cain, is a stand-alone companion novel for teen readers from Simon and Schuster Books for Young Readers. ... Cains Blood and Project Cain are two different novels written about the same fictional event. In both, scientists have been doing unpleasant things for the military and these unpleasant things escape. The two books explore the trouble/adventure that ensues and simply do so differently. Cains Blood uses the form/devices of a traditional thriller. It follows the story from a dozen viewpoints; mostly from former-army-Ranger Shawn Castilllos narrative Point of View (the character brought in to fix things), but also via chapters/scenes from the POV of various killers, military schemers, evil scientists, and victims. All capturing the big picture as the full horrifying story unfolds. Project Cain is told from the POV of one character: Jeff Jacobson, the sixteen-year-old clone of Jeffrey Dahmer who has recently discovered his true origins and who is recruited by Castillo into helping, we hope, save the day. Its a much more personal story/journey told with the voice and reflections of a smart, lost and thoughtful teen. A thriller specifically written for younger readers (PG-13) and those adults still interested in young heroes. From http://www.geoffreygirard.com/contact.html: Simon and Schuster will publish two Girard novels in 2013: Cain's Blood, a techno thriller, and Project Cain, a spinoff novel for teen/YA readers. Looking at Appendix J.2 of RDA, it looks to me that the only possible useable designator there is complemented by (work) A work paired with another work without either work being considered to predominate. I am wondering what others think. Use complemented by (work) to relate these two novels, or should I suggest a new term to be added to RDA. If so, what are the best suggestions for this new term? Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Abbreviating place of publication (was 264 question)
I would contact OCLC Quality Control and let them know and ask them to
contact the offending library.
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Northrup, Kristen D. wrote:
One thing we're regularly coming across in our copy cataloging is someone
changing transcription to postal codes. For example, we get many records from
Thorndike Press. It says Waterville, Maine on the item. DLC does a pre-pub with
the transcription and that's how it stays in their catalog. But by the time it
reaches us, and has alphabet soup in the 040, it's always Waterville, ME. Which
isn't even the version in the RDA Appendix, of course. I change them back
whenever allowed but is there a way to identify which library is doing that and
clarifying things?
Kristen Northrup
Head, Technical Services State Document Depository
North Dakota State Library
Bismarck, ND
701-328-4610
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 4:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question
Dana said:
I feel that in this case it would be very helpful if there was another
example under Rule 2.8.2.6.2 with a state name spelled out
You transcribe in 264$a what is on the item, and more often than not, the
jurisdiction is abbreviated. If supplying in brackets, spell it out. NEVER
supply a postal code. (Some would accept abbreviations as used in access
points for cities.)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 264 question
That is certainly one correct possible way to do this. Your other option would be to take a best guess at the place of publication and then you wouldn't need the second 264. Two possibilities: 264 _1 [Charleston, South Carolina?] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] or 264 _1 [United States] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] or even 264 _1 [United States?] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Saunders, Mary wrote: I have a self-published monograph which contains only this publication information: Made in the USA, Charleston, SC, 07 June 2013. Do I make a 264 1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] and a 264 3 Charleston, SC : $b [Manufacturer not identified], $c 2013 Or only the 264 3? Mary Saunders, Cataloger Maine State Library 64 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0064 mary.saund...@maine.govmailto:mary.saund...@maine.gov 207-287-5620 207-287-5638 FAX
Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query
No, the element is just copyright date. Only a date (preceded by (c) or (p) is recorded in 264 _4 $c. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Karen Nelson wrote: What Dana has just posted is very helpful (great timing!) and I have just noticed that Mac answered a very similar one from me last time I was fiddling with some RDA bibs. Should've checked my saved replies, note to self. But I am still wondering about the issue of the author holding copyright ... does her name go in the second 264, if a second one is kept? Haven't seen it done so far. Karen From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:33 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query I am just getting my toes wet with some RDA copy cataloguing based on LC bibs. Looking at the bib for Louise Erdrich's Round House, LCCN 2012005381. There is a 260 in this one still. I want to edit it to 264(s). So far, I have included: 264_1|aNew York, NY :|bHarper,|c[2012] or maybe [2012?] 264_4 |ccopyright 2012 My queries: Since the author is identified on the tp verso as copyright holder, do I include her in the second (copyright) 264? I don't think I have seen that done, but does not to do so imply that Harper has the copyright? Should the square-bracketed inferred date in the first 264 have a question mark, or not. LC had it in 260 without copyright symbol. Haven't checked the publisher's website yet. This level of question will give someone a laugh, if nothing else. Karen
Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record?
For what it's worth, PCC guidelines say to use the terms, not the codes. Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Dana Van Meter wrote: Thank you Mark. I did re-read Appendix I.1 after I had already sent my question and realized that yes, it does say that you can use the more specific terms. Wish I had realized that before I sent my question! In the case of the $4 code, you're saying you would use just the $4 code, right? (And not a combination of $4 plus $e using the terminology accompanying the code in the MARC Code List for Relators?). I don't have a problem with using just the $4 code, I just wanted to be clear that you are saying you would just use the $4 code alone in cases where a term doesn't yet exist in the text of RDA. I did end up using author for the print lecture series I was asking about below. Thanks again for your help! -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:29 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record? Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote: 1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold), or are we to use performer only, to cover all those types of situations represented by the more specific indented not in bold terms? The indented terms are also available for use: so for an actor, you can use actor or the broader term, performer. If we can use the more specific indented terms, how were we supposed to know that? I wasn't sure if we are allowed to use these indented terms, or if they're just further (and more specific) examples of what is meant by the bold faced code. If we can use these more specific indented terms, I think it might be helpful if RDA specifically said that following the definition of a bold faced term (or you can use these more specific terms, or something to that effect). I agree these could be formatted better for scanning: bold's easier to see than italic. But as to the last point, there's this paragraph under I.1: Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work can be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the more general relationship designator author. Are we able to use relationship designators or terms such as music copyist in a |e if they have a MARC 3-letter code, even if the term does not appear in RDA? Terms can come from outside of RDA (quoting I.1 again: If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use another concise term to indicate the nature of the relationship). My opinion on code versus spelled out form: if using something from the MARC relator term list, add to the record as a $4 code. RDA 0.12 says that is using a list of terms from outside of RDA (like for relationship designators), these may be given provided the encoding scheme is identified. Codes in $4s are as close as you can get to a flashing neon sign telling folks where the term (i.e., code) came from. 2. I have a print series which contains lectures, can |e performer be used for lecturers/speakers when the lecture is in print form? I tend to think of performer as limited to someone we can see and hear doing their craft. Words on a page don't cut it in that respect; the lecturer performed an authorial role to create the text. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Committee chair relator term
Within the U.S., there's a mechanism in place now for proposing new
relationship designators through the Program for Cooperative Cataloging's
Standing Committee on Standards. I imagine in Canada you would contact
the Canadian JSC representative to make a proposal. Or does CCC have
something set up to vet proposals?
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
We need a relator term f0r the committee chair of a report issuing
body; $eissuing body works for the committee, but what for the
chair? Should we just make up committee chair out of whole cloth?
BTW, contrary to what LAC told us ealier, the records we are seeing
have $e terms not $4 cpdes. This means we will have to have both
English and mFrench lists. Too bad. Codes were such a nice one stop
solution for bilingualism.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
Julie, Not sure why you are having trouble finding the RDA instructions. See 1.9 Dates. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote: Bob ... Yes, it was the [197-?] scenario that I was thinking of, where there is nothing that tells you any kind of a date ... but you have the feeling that it was probably made in the 70s ... possibly just based on your own experience. I've been searching all over the place in RDA trying to find that ... so it's good to know that it simply is not there. As you say, one can always use the [between 1970 and 1979?] approach. Thanks, Julie On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote: You have to do something like ?[between 2000 and 2010?]? (RDA 1.9.2.4) or ?[between 2000 and 2010]? (RDA 1.9.2.5). The first would be if you think it?s some time between the two dates but aren?t sure?it might be earlier or later; the second would be if you know it?s some time between the two dates but don?t know the exact year. AACR2 formulations such as ?18?? or ?197-? didn?t find their way into RDA. ** ** Bob ** ** Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:24 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required? ** ** Bob, Oh yes ... duh :-) ... I forgot the $c [date of publication not identified]! ** ** Are we still allowed to take a stab at the date if it's unknown ... for example, if there is absolutely no date on the item anywhere, but you're pretty sure it was published in this decade, is it OK to put $c [201?] in the 264 _1? (I catalog a lot of non-print materials ... and many have no date.) ... or is this where I just throw up my hands and evoke: $c [date of publication not identified] ** ** Thanks for the guidance! Cheers, Julie Moore ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote: Julie, In addition to what Adam said, in current practice we are required to include subfields $a, $b, and $c in 264 _1 even if we?ve included ?core if? elements later on, so your first example should read: 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of publication not identified] 264 #4 $c ?2009 But as Adam noted, it?s better to try to supply a date (as in your second example, which is fine). And actually, if you think about it, we probably never need to record ?date of publication not identified? for a published item even if we have no evidence whatsoever about the date of publication, because we do know one thing: it was published before it got to us for cataloging, so you can always record, if nothing else, ? $c [not after June 13, 2013] (I know, I know, there?s the case where a publisher claims to have published something in 2014 and we receive it in 2013, proving that things sometimes get ?published? after we get them, but let?s deal with that problem only if the publisher has explicitly put a future publication date on the piece?this has been extensively discussed before in this forum, I believe.) Actually, I now have a question for the collective wisdom of the list. How do you code the MARC fixed date fields if you have a ?not before? or a ?not after? date of publication? I don?t see any explanation of this situation in the documentation for 008/06 ? 008/14. I could possibly see using ?q? and the date + for a ?not before? date, but what about a ?not after? date? Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:27 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required? If all that you have is the copyright date, then it should look like this, right? 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher
Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
Distribution would only be a core element if the publication element was not identified. Manufacture would only be core element if neither the publication nor the distribution element was identified. You COULD provide everything you know but if you have publication place, publisher, and date of publication, nothing else is required. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote: (My apologies for the cross-posting) Dear All, In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent period issue ... Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of: 2nd indicator entity functions of: 0 = Production 1 = Publication 2 = Distribution 3 = Manufacture Statements 4 = Copyright notice date Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are required? I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and a 4 (copyright date). I would be grateful for some clarification on this. Best wishes, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
Re: [RDA-L] Query about recording Copyright holder information
Just the date (preceded by (c) or (p)). You can record detailed copyright status in field 542: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd542.html Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Jennifer Lobb wrote: Hi all, I am cataloging a book where the copyright holder is different from the publisher. Are we supposed to put this in the 264 4 field or is the date the only information that goes there? Thanks. Jenny
Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
I think many catalogers feel that since the copyright date is present on the resource, they should record it even if they've given an inferred publication date in 264 _1 $c. And some libraries have made it a local core element. If it is present, I always record it. Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote: Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records with multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4? Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they put the publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright date -- so thus, and inferred publication date?] ... and then they are putting the copyright date in the 264 _4? Thanks, Julie Moore On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: Distribution would only be a core element if the publication element was not identified. Manufacture would only be core element if neither the publication nor the distribution element was identified. You COULD provide everything you know but if you have publication place, publisher, and date of publication, nothing else is required. ^^** Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote: (My apologies for the cross-posting) Dear All, In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent period issue ... Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of: 2nd indicator entity functions of: 0 = Production 1 = Publication 2 = Distribution 3 = Manufacture Statements 4 = Copyright notice date Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are required? I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and a 4 (copyright date). I would be grateful for some clarification on this. Best wishes, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
Julie, LC-PCC Policy Statement for 2.8.6.6 says Supply a date of publication if possible, using the guidelines below, rather than give [date of publication not identified]. A. If an item lacking a publication date contains only a copyright date, apply the following in the order listed: 1. Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. 2. If the copyright date is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date. B. If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the year is the same for both, supply a date of publication that corresponds to that date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. C. If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. A manufacture date may also be recorded as part of a manufacture statement, or recorded as part of a Note on issue, part, or iteration used as the basis for identification of a resource (See 2.20.13), if determined useful by the cataloger. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote: If all that you have is the copyright date, then it should look like this, right? 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified] 264 #4 $c ?2009 Is it OK or incorrect to add the copyright date in the 264 bracketed as an inferred date? So it would look like this: 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [2009] 264 #4 $c ?2009 Thanks for your guidance! Best wishes, Julie On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: I think many catalogers feel that since the copyright date is present on the resource, they should record it even if they've given an inferred publication date in 264 _1 $c. And some libraries have made it a local core element. If it is present, I always record it. Adam Schiff ^^** Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote: Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records with multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4? Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they put the publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright date -- so thus, and inferred publication date?] ... and then they are putting the copyright date in the 264 _4? Thanks, Julie Moore On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu **wrote: Distribution would only be a core element if the publication element was not identified. Manufacture would only be core element if neither the publication nor the distribution element was identified. You COULD provide everything you know but if you have publication place, publisher, and date of publication, nothing else is required. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff http://faculty.**washington.edu/~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote: (My apologies for the cross-posting) Dear All, In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent period issue ... Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of: 2nd indicator entity functions of: 0 = Production 1 = Publication 2 = Distribution 3 = Manufacture Statements 4 = Copyright notice date Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are required? I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and a 4 (copyright date). I would be grateful for some clarification on this. Best wishes, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.?... James
Re: [RDA-L] Syntax for relationship designators
The PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records recently issued (http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx) requires the inclusion of a relationship designator for all creators and strongly encourages the inclusion of designators for other entities. The link in that document to the PCC Relationship Designator Guidelines Task Group Report will provide you with some of the rationale for including the designators. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Don Charuk wrote: Could someone please explain the rational of either including or not including the comma before the relationship designator. We have found names with either no dates or with closed dates using the comma. While names with open dates are not using the comma. Our Web team dislikes the inconsistency. I would like to have some authoritative reasoning if such exists. Thank you.
Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a musical
Merci Daniel! I did not catch that those definitions had been changed. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Paradis Daniel wrote: The current definitions of librettist and lyricist in Appendix are not quite clear and have therefore been revised as follows in 6JSC/ALA/13/Sec final (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-13-Sec-final.pdf) (to be integrated in the Toolkit in the July update): librettist An author of the words of an opera or other musical stage work, or an oratorio. For an author of the words of just the songs from a musical, see lyricist. lyricist An author of the words of a popular song, including a song or songs from a musical. For an author of just the dialogue from a musical, see librettist. So if the same person wrote the book (i.e. the dialogue) and the lyrics of a musical, the correct term would be librettist. If the book and the lyrics were written by different persons, librettist would be used for the author of the dialogue and lyricist for the author of the lyrics. 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 http://www.banq.qc.ca/ De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la part de Adam Schiff Date: mar. 2013-06-11 02:10 À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a musical Hi all, What are people using for the author of the book for a musical? The RDA designator librettist seems to be for the sung words in a dramatic musical work, rather than the spoken text. I guess perhaps the correct term would be author? Or would people just use librettist for both the words to the songs in a musical as well as the words spoken that aren't sung? Or perhaps use lyricist for the author of the words to the songs and librettist for the author of the spoken words? Thanks, Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries asch...@uw.edu
[RDA-L] Title proper choice (multiple parallel titles)
I am trying to figure out what RDA says to do when the preferred source has parallel titles and the content is equally divided among different languages. 2.3.2.4 says: Title in More Than One Language or Script If: the content of the resource is written, spoken, or sung and the source of information for the title proper has a title in more than one language or script then: choose as the title proper the title in the language or script of the main content of the resource. If the content is not written, spoken, or sung, choose the title proper on the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source of information. This instruction does not address what to do if there is no main content of the resource. I am wondering if something got left out of the final paragraph or if there should be another paragraph that says what to do when the content is multiple languages/scripts with no main content? My presumption is that you should choose the title proper on the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source of information, but nothing tells us to do this. Here's a specific real example: Title page has titles in this order: Arabic title Chinese title English title French title Russian title Spanish title (Yes, you guessed, it's a UN document). The same content is present in all of these language, but curiously the order of the content as you page through the book is English text, French text, Spanish text, Chinese text, Russian text, Arabic text. AACR2 1.1B8 did say what to do: If the chief source of information bears titles in two or more languages or scripts, transcribe as the title proper the one in the language or script of the main written, spoken, or sung content of the item. If this criterion is not applicable, choose the title proper by reference to the order of titles on, or the layout of, the chief source of information. Record the other titles as parallel titles. It seems to me that RDA as rewritten from AACR2 gets the criterion wrong. It shouldn't be that the content is not written, spoken, or sung, it should be that there is no main content in a single language. In any case, there is nothing in RDA at present that tells me what title proper to choose in the example I've given above. Is a rule revision or LC-PCC policy statement needed for this? Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Language of expression
Joan, In the Defiance example in 6.11.1.4 the recording of the language of expression would, in a bibliographic record, be done only in 041. There aren't three different expressions of the film in English, German, Russian, there is only a single expression which has dialogue in 3 languages. So there wouldn't be separate expression access points for these three languages. In its original theatrically released form, the film has just a single expression, and so you only use a work access point for it. Just as you don't add an expression element to a work access point for the original expression in a single language, you wouldn't add any expression elements to the work access point for a film that is expressed in multiple languages. It's only dubbed versions (translations) that we would include expression access points in a bibliographic record. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Many thanks for your reply, Adam I actually found the example under RDA 6.11.1.4. If following the rule, record each of the languages (in authorized access points) for a motion picture with some dialogue in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian. There is also another example of an atlas involving seven languages. What you are saying is under Library of Congress Policy Appendix 1? English German Russian Resource described: Defiance / Paramount Vantage presents a Grosvenor Park/Bedford Falls production ; an Edward Zwick film ; executive producer, Marshall Herskovitz ; produced by Edward Zwick, Pieter Jan Brugge ; director of photography, Eduardo Serra ; screenplay by Clayton Frohman Edward Zwick ; directed by Edward Zwick. *A motion picture with some dialogue in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian.* Thanks again, Joan Wang On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: For a film in which there are multiple languages spoken in a single expression, you would not use an expression access point at all. You would just use the access point for the work, but you would record the languages in 008 and 041 and 546 only. The example in RDA is Defiance: 041 0_ eng $a ger $a rus 130 0 Defiance (Motion picture : 2008) 245 10 Defiance / $c Paramount Vantage presents a Grosvenor Park/Bedford Falls production ; an Edward Zwick film ; executive producer, Marshall Herskovitz ; produced by Edward Zwick, Pieter Jan Brugge ; director of photography, Eduardo Serra ; screenplay by Clayton Frohman Edward Zwick ; directed by Edward Zwick. 546 In English, German, and Russian. Now if the DVD you had of this film also had dubbed versions or subtitled versions, you could make additional access points for those expressions included on your manifestation: 041 1_ eng $a ger $a rus $a fre $a spa $j eng $j fre $j spa $h eng $h ger $h rus 546 In English, German, and Russian; dubbed French or dubbed Spanish dialogue with optional English, French, or Spanish subtitles. 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l French. 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l Spanish. There isn't a good way or best practice yet to formulate and distinguish a dubbed expression from a subtitled expression, although I suppose you could do something like this if you felt the next to differentiate to that level: 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l French. $s (Dubbed) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l Spanish. $s (Dubbed) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l English. $s (Subtitled) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l French. $s (Subtitled) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l Spanish. $s (Subtitled) --Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Language of expression Many thanks. Trina. Yes, what I am talking about are authorized access points for expressions. Language is a part of them. I just realized that more than one expression contained in a manifestation should go primary relationships between Group 1 entities. It may not be covered by RDA 6.11. A motion picture contains subtitles should not be considered multiple expressions? I kind of agree with you. I looked at Library of Congress Policy Appendix 1 (for motion pictures, television programs, radio programs). It does say following RDA 6.11.1.4 to construct authorized access points for a subtitled motion picture released under the same or a different title. So
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for related expressions, works etc for a music score
Since there are only two poems, why use a collective title for them? Why not give access points for each of them, if their titles are known? The access point Poems. Selections. English is quite misleading, since it gives no indication of how many selections will be found in the resource. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Andra Patterson wrote: Hi Si?n, Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth! Yes, I think it is useful to record the relationship between Neruda's work and Daughtrey's concerto. This is recorded as a relationship to a related work (25.1) and it could be recorded as an unstructured description in the 500 rather than in 500 and 700 (see the 2nd example in the final box of examples at 25.1.1.3). As you point out, the text of the poems does not form part of the work, so the relationship designator musical setting of (work) is not appropriate. Using an unstructured description to record the relationship eliminates the need for a relationship designator. You could record a whole-part relationship as a 700 to record the fact that the poems are contained in the resource, using a relationship designator from J.3.4: 100 1 ?a Daughtrey, Nathan ?e composer. 240 10 ?a Concertos, ?m vibraphone, percussion ensemble 245 10 ?a Concerto for vibraphone percussion ensemble / ?c Nathan Daughtrey. 500?a The two-movement work draws inspiration from two opposing poems by Pablo Neruda that depict night and day--Program notes. 700 12 ?i Contains (expression): ?a Neruda, Pablo, ?d 1904-1973. ?t Poems. ?k Selections. ?l English. I apologise in advance if my thoughts are incorrect - I'm happy to be corrected! Best wishes, Andra Andra Patterson | Team Leader, Cataloguing Team 2 National Library of New Zealand PO Box 1467, Wellington 6140 Email: andra.patter...@dia.govt.nzmailto:andra.patter...@dia.govt.nz | Direct Dial: +64 4 460 2858 | Internal extension: 3258 | http://natlib.govt.nz/ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Sian Woolcock Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013 12:02 p.m. To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for related expressions, works etc for a music score Hi everyone, Hoping I could get some advice on a music score I am currently cataloguing in RDA. My score is a concerto for Vibraphone and Percussion ensemble. The program notes written in the score include two poems by Pablo Neruda (written in English) and the statement ?The two-movement work draws inspiration from two opposing poems by Pablo Neruda that depict night and day?. The poems do not form any part of the actual music of the score (so would not be performed as they are neither narrated or sung). Whilst they will not be part of any performance of the score I want to make reference to Neruda as the poems were considered significant enough inspiration to the composer that their text was printed in the program notes. My questions are 1. Am I correct in my assumption that Neruda?s work/inspiration should be recorded in the record as a related expression? 2. Is a name title 700 entry (see below) the best way to do this? 3. Is the relationship designator I have used from Appendix J (J 2.2) of the toolkit the appropriate one given that the text does not form part of the actual work? (i.e. it?s not a libretto) - ?i musical setting of (work). If not what is the alternative? 100 1 ?a Daughtrey, Nathan ?e composer. 240 1 0 ?a Concertos, ?m vibraphone, percussion ensemble 245 1 0 ?a Concerto for vibraphone percussion ensemble / ?c Nathan Daughtrey. 500?a The two-movement work draws inspiration from two opposing poems by Pablo Neruda that depict night and day. -- Program notes. 700 1 2 ?i musical setting of (work) ?a Neruda, Pablo, ?d 1904-1973. ?t Poems. ?k Selections. ?l English. Apologies in advance if my questions are a bit too basic for the forum but I am fairly new to cataloguing. Thanks for any guidance you can offer. Kind regards Si?n Si?n Woolcock Assistant Metadata Librarian (Music) University of Adelaide Library The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA 5005 Ph: +61 8 8313 5225 e-mail : sian.woolc...@adelaide.edu.au [UoA_Uni_Lib_col_horz_sig] CRICOS Provider Number 00123M --- This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential and/or copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please do not read, save, forward, disclose, or copy the contents of this email. If this email has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply email
Re: [RDA-L] English Hebrew -- English.. a taste of things to come?
Each of these types of authority records for expressions with multiple languages needs to result in two or more new authority records, with the original record cancelled (it could be put in 040 $z of the new RDA records, but Coop Team personnel would have to do that, since we can't add 040 $z in OCLC). And as Gary pointed out in a previous message, we still don't have a best practice as to what to use for the expression in the original language. LC-PCC policy statements show that LC catalogers will not add the original language to the work access point, so that the work access point doubles as the access point for the original expression. Example: 010n 92057471 100 1_ Amin, Samir. $t Avenir du socialisme. $l English French 400 1_ Amin, Samir. $t Future of socialism would result in deleting record n 92057471 and: 010new LCCN $z n 92057471 100 1_ Amin, Samir. $t Avenir du socialisme. $l English 400 1_ Amin, Samir. $t Future of socialism and 010new LCCN $z n 92057471 100 1_ Amin, Samir. $t Avenir du socialisme. $l French or 010new LCCN $z n 92057471 100 1_ Amin, Samir. $t Avenir du socialisme ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 31 May 2013, Gary L Strawn wrote: Since there's no one-for-one correspondence, I think the best thing is just to delete 'em. I'd be delighted if they were all deleted in a batch? Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.25.428 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] English Hebrew -- English.. a taste of things to come? So, Gary, what is the proper behavior with these records in the authority file? -- 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) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:10 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] English Hebrew -- English.. a taste of things to come? This very matter has been the subject of more than one e-mail to what I can only refer to as offenders. In our current wild-West everyone-does-what-they-want world I doubt that anything except eternal vigilance on all of our parts can prevent this kind of improper behavior from adversely affecting our databases. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edumailto:mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.25.428 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adger Williams Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] English Hebrew -- English.. a taste of things to come? n 79084797. Haggadah English has a see-reference from Haggadah English Hebrew. When this record hit our database, it turned all the entries for Haggadah English Hebrew into entries for Haggadah English. I then went through and added the extra entry for Haggadah Hebrew. (hm... that may require some more thought) Does anyone know if this is the way NACO will be handling the RDA insistence on only one language in subfield l of title authority records? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edumailto:awilli...@colgate.edu
[RDA-L] ISSN placement in 490
I've got a question about where to record the ISSN when there is both a series title proper and a parallel series title. RDA doesn't provide any guidance or examples for this situation. Consider this situation: Series Title Proper: Frankfurt contributions to natural history Numbering Within Series: volume 55 Parallel Series Title Proper: Frankfurter Beitrage zur Naturkunde Parallel Numbering Within Series: Band 55 ISSN appears once in the resource: 1613-2327 For ISBD punctuation, RDA appendix D tells us that a comma precedes the ISSN, but it doesn't tell us where to put the ISSN when there is a series title proper and a parallel series title proper. I went to the ISBD consolidated and it doesn't address this situation EXCEPT with this example: . -- (Title proper of series, ISSN ; numbering within series = Parallel title of series, ISSN ; parallel numbering within series) Based on the ISBD example, it seems that we should repeat the ISSN: 490 1_ $a Frankfurt contributions to natural history, $x 1613-2327 ; $v volume 55 = $a Frankfurter Beitrage zur Naturkunde, $x 1613-2327 ; $v Band 55 Is this what we should do in RDA? Or should we just record the ISSN once, and if so, does it go after the series title proper or after the parallel series title? --Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.27.1.9 Additions to access points representing works (LC PCC PS)
Some time ago, I pointed out to PSD that the example in the Appendix you cite is not in line with the example elsewhere in LC-PCC PS 6.27.3: 700 12 $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. 700 12 $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish. It looks like they haven't reconciled these two examples. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 15 May 2013, Jennifer W. Baxmeyer wrote: Hi everyone, RDA 6.27.1.9 states: Make additions to access points if needed to distinguish the access point for a work: from one that is the same or similar but represents a different work or from one that represents a person, family, corporate body, or place. The LC PCC-PS for 6.27.1.9 shows the following: Appendix 1: Motion Pictures, Television Programs, Radio Programs Example 5. Subtitled motion picture released under the same or a different title. Construct an authorized access point for a subtitled motion picture released under the same or a different title: 245 00 Seven samurai ... 730 02 Shichinin no samurai. ?l English. 730 02 Shichinin no samurai . ?l Japanese. My questions are: 1. Why is $l Japanese needed for the second 730 field since this is the original language of the work? 2. Why do we follow this practice with motion pictures but not with printed monographs? We wouldn?t include $l with the original language... Thank you! -- Jennifer W. Baxmeyer Leader, Serials and E-Resources Team Princeton University Library Technical Services Department Cataloging and Metadata Services 693 Alexander Road Princeton NJ 08540 b...@princeton.edumailto:b...@princeton.edu 609.258.3631 phone 609.258.9363 fax
Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate body
Thomas, What you said about films is not quite totally correct. Appendix I does have a relationship designator under creator of work: filmmaker A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating an independent or personal film. A filmmaker is individually responsible for the conception and execution of all aspects of the film. For a very small subset of films, if one person/family/corporate body were responsible for all aspects, that entity would be the creator of the work and the film would be named using the combination of Creater/Preferred title. This is most likely to happen for student works and home movies, I imagine. If you think of all of those YouTube videos where someone points a camera at themselves and just talks to the camera, I think that would be a case that would fall under the designator filmmaker. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Mon, 13 May 2013, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: If an other person/family/corporate body associated with the work is used to construct the authorized access point representing the work, then that *one* person, family or corporate body associated with the work is the core element. Another way to state this is to say whoever became the main entry in AACR2 is a core element value in RDA (the instructions for authorized access points for works in RDA 6.27-6.31 are where one finds the equivalent to AACR2 main entry rules). Only one person, family or corporate body is chosen for that spot, whether it's a creator or an other associated with the work. In MARC terms, what RDA 18.3 is saying is that the name found in the 1XX field is the core element, but names found in 7XX fields are not core elements. Interestingly, for moving image works like movies, there is no core relationship element. All persons or corporate bodies associated with the work when it comes to movies fall under the element Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with the Work (examples: film director, film producer). There are none that fall under the Creator element. But because the authorized access point for a moving image work is formed only with the preferred title (RDA 6.27.1.3) then there is no person or corporate body that becomes part of the authorized access point for a moving image work. Therefore, the director or producer for a moving image work are not core elements. In other words, in the case of a movie, there may be several people that fall under the element Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with the Work but not a single one of them becomes a core element because none of them are used to form the authorized access point for the movie. 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 Joan Wang Sent: May-13-13 1:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate body Hi, all I have two questions about authorized access points for person/family/corporate body. Q1: RDA 18.3 says that creator is a core element. If there is more than one, only the principle or the first-named creator is required. It also says that other person/family/corporate body associated with a work is a core element (if the access point representing that person/family/ corporate body is used to construct the authorized access point representing the work). But it does not mention the situation of more than one. I assume that we can follow the requirement for creator if there is more than one person/family/corporate body associated with a work other than a creator.
Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate body
Andrea, I think you are reading too much into the word filmmaker - this is just the term that the JSC chose to use to describe the relationship of a person/family/corporate body as the sole creator of a film. A person who makes a YouTube video entirely themself, with no other collaborators, is by RDA definition, the filmmaker responsible for the creation of that work. Doesn't matter whether or not they think of themselves as a filmmaker/auteur. As for screenwriter, I think you have to think about the screenplay as a work in and of itself. These are published commonly, and in that context, the creator is at the level of the work, and could be labelled as an author, or, more specifically because RDA provides such a more specific term, as screenwriter. Perhaps in the context of the motion picture as a work itself, the screenwriter is not a creator, but in the context of the screenplay published as its own separate work, he/she certainly is, just as the playwright for a published play is. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Mon, 13 May 2013, Leigh, Andrea wrote: I used to create home movies and student films, but I would not consider myself a filmmaker, any more than someone who writes a short story as part of an assignment for a class would necessarily think of themselves as a writer. I would tend to think someone who puts up a YouTube video they shot of their backyard during a snowstorm would not necessarily think of themselves as a filmmaker, either. I tend to think of filmmaker in the context of the RDA definition as someone like a John Sayles or John Cassavetes or even Spielberg, Scorsese, and Clint Eastwood-- all auteurs who have a personal style and who generally can choose their own projects and have creative control over all aspects of the production. Even in this context, I still would not think of any of these filmmakers as individually responsible for the conception and execution of all aspects of the production. Part of their personal style is dependent on the cast and crew that they elect to work with-- Steven Spielberg relies on John Williams as composer, Eastwood on cinematographer and production designer Henry Bumstead, Sayles and Cassavetes with their repertory of actors, Scorsese with editor Thelma Schoonmaker and his repertory of actors, notably DeNiro and now Leo DiCaprio. There's also screenwriter listed as a relationship designator under creator of work, yet I admit to having trouble with a screenwriter as creator of a moving image work, while the director, producers, production company, director of photography are all under others associated with the work. Screenwriters are assigned as a core element when the relationship is to a publication of the screenplay, but not in the context of a moving image work of mixed responsibility, particularly since the screenplay goes through numerous revisions during the production process. If any of you have seen the interstitial on TCM about Dog Day Afternoon (1975) that's been running over the last few days, it's one example of this process. Rather than follow the script, the actors were encouraged to ad lib the dialogue, and then each night, the director and screenwriter would document the ad libs and restructure the script to incorporate the adlibs that worked. Andrea --- Andrea Leigh Moving Image Processing Unit Head Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation 19053 Mt. Pony Rd. Culpeper, VA 22701 202.707.0852 a...@loc.gov www.loc.gov/avconservation Opinions are my own -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 2:19 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate body Thomas, What you said about films is not quite totally correct. Appendix I does have a relationship designator under creator of work: filmmaker A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating an independent or personal film. A filmmaker is individually responsible for the conception and execution of all aspects of the film. For a very small subset of films, if one person/family/corporate body were responsible for all aspects, that entity would be the creator of the work and the film would be named using the combination of Creater/Preferred title. This is most likely to happen for student works and home movies, I imagine. If you think of all of those YouTube videos where someone points a camera at themselves and just talks to the camera, I think that would be a case that would fall under
Re: [RDA-L] Active dates
The reason you don't see the word active in the examples is because period of activity is a separate element in RDA, so by definition the dates recorded in that element are activity/flourished dates. Since there isn't a separate element for this in MARC 21, we have to add in the word active to the access points. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 8 May 2013, Michael Borries wrote: I remember seeing all kinds of emails about replacing fl. with active, but when I look at the instructions in RDA 9.3.4 and 9.3.1, I don't find any instructions to use the word active, or any other word, except approximately. If one reads the instructions as they stand, it would seem that all one should record is the span of dates of activity, nothing more. The LC training materials do clarify this with the instruction to use active. 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] Another relator term question -- Government agencies in the 710
issuing body seems the most appropriate ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 8 May 2013, Northrup, Kristen D. wrote: We catalog a lot of government documents and give the issuing agency a 710. They're usually in the 260 as well, but of course they do more than publish the report. They order and sponsor the research, etc. What is the best |e to use for that relationship? Kristen Northrup Head, Technical Services State Document Depository North Dakota State Library Bismarck, ND 701-328-4610
Re: [RDA-L] Items that are both in hard copy and PDF
Kyley, These are two different manifestations and they are not issued together, so I don't think you can or should describe them as a multipart monograph. In RDA you would probably create two separate records, but you could probably just create a record for the print and then note the existence of the online version as a different manifestation (776 field and/or 530 note) and add an 856 41 field that links to the online version. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 8 May 2013, Felix, Kyley wrote: Hello cataloguers Do any of you catalogue items that are both hard copy and a PDF file in the one catalogue record? I realise it is probably not common practice, but this has been done in my workplace for years and now that I am starting to use RDA I'm unsure whether to continue and whether they should now be in completely separate records. Is this the way that you would do it in RDA if you catalogued them in the one record: Physical description (300) (a)28 pages and 1 online resource : (b) PDF file ; (c)30 cm. Content type (336) text txt rdacontent Media type (337) computer c rdamedia Media type (337) unmediated n rdamedia Carrier type (338) online resource cr rdacarrier Carrier type (338) volume nc rdacarrier Digital file characteristics (347) text file PDF rda Thanks for your feedback. Kyley Felix Librarian Parliamentary Library Parliament House Harvest Tce Perth WA 6000 Phone: (08) 9222 7393 Kyley Felix Librarian Parliamentary Library Parliament House Harvest Tce Perth WA 6000 Phone: (08) 9222 7393 - PARLIAMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONDITIONS OF USE, PUBLICATION, OR DISCLOSURE OF THIS EMAIL APPLICABLE TO RECIPIENT The content of this email (including any attachments) - is provided for the use of the intended recipient only; and - mere receipt in no way authorises any recipient to disclose or publish all or part of it to another person or in any form. If this email relates to matters that were, or are being, considered by one or both Houses of Parliament or a committee of either or both Houses, any unauthorised use, publication or disclosure may amount to a breach of the privileges of the House(s). A person who is not an intended recipient is requested to advise the sender and delete this email immediately. Although this email has been scanned for viruses, this email is not guaranteed to be free of viruses and should be vetted by your own security mechanisms. The Parliament of Western Australia accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or its attachments.
Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA
As I understand LC policy, the 600 would not be correct and a fictitious character heading in LCSH would need to be used (or proposed through SACO). ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Sarah Stein wrote: Thank you! So, since this character is the illustrator then the 600 and 700 are correct. Sarah JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org 4/30/2013 1:41 PM Sarah, The 4th paragraph of RDA 9.0 indicates that the scope of person in RDA includes fictitious entities, such as literary figures, legendary figures, etc. So, you follow the same instructions for the name of a fictitious entity as you would for the name of any other person. The context, however, must be that the fictitious entity is functioning in a role as creator (ch. 19), contributor (ch. 20), etc.; if the fictitious entity's role is only as subject of the resource, the RDA instructions do not apply. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Sarah Stein sst...@denverlibrary.org wrote: Can anyone tell me where in the RDA Toolkit I can find instructions for fictitious character? oclc#730414273 Professor Jonathan T. Buck's mysterious airship notebook :?bthe lost step-by-step dirigible drawings from the pioneer of steampunk design /?cby Keith Riegert Samuel Kaplan ; illustrated by Jonathan Buck. Jonathan Buck is not a real person which is clearly stated in this authority file: ARN9385436 010 no2013005992 ?z no2013005083 040 ICrlF ?b eng ?e rda ?c ICrlF ?d DLC 046 ?f 18500917 1001 Buck, Jonathan T., ?d 1850- 370 Baton Rouge, La. ?e South America 372 Engineering 374 Engineer ?a Illustrator 375 male 377 eng 670 Riegert, Keith. Professor Jonathan T. Buck's mysterious airship notebook, c2013: ?b t.p. (illustrated by Jonathan Buck) p. 3 (born Sept. 17, 1850 in Baton Rouge, La.; death date unknown; American engineer, riverboat captain, flight pioneer, and adventurer who invented the Air Paddle Steamer steam-powered riverboat dirigible and disappeared while on an expedition in South America) 678 Professor Jonathan T. Buck is the fictitious American engineer and adventurer who invented the steam-powered riverboat dirigible. This AF does not have the statement that is found in some other fictitious charactor as creator AFs e.g. ARN9436377 Richard Castle-- 667 SUBJECT USAGE: This heading is not valid for use as a subject; use a fictitious character heading from LCSH. Does that mean that under RDA this is changed? The OCLC record has both a 700 and 600 for Jonathan T. Buck. I have not been able to find anything in the RDA Toolkit but perhaps I am not searching effectively, I have just started using it. Thanks for any help, Sarah Stein Sr. Special Collections Librarian Technical Services - Cataloging Denver Public Library 10 W. 14th Avenue Parkway Denver, Colorado, 80204-2731 USA 720-865-1123 ( tel:720-865-1123 ) sst...@denverlibrary.org http://denverlibrary.org ( http://denverlibrary.org/ )
Re: [RDA-L] Two questions
Dear collective wisdom, I and another cataloger here at CUNY Central Office have two questions regarding creating personal name authority records using RDA: 1. The more theoretical question. In fields 372 and 374 (field of activity and occupation), the instructions in RDA give very generic phrases, such as Theater, Literature, Poets, etc. However, if the information stored in these fields is being considered (as has been suggested in various posts on various lists) for use not only in identification, but also for searching, would it not be better to have more specific information, such as Dominican literature and Dominican authors (we are working on a project involving these)? I don't see any prohibition in this regard, but no one seems to do this. Language of the person's works is already represented in field 377. Nationality terms may be coming in the future in the newly approved 386 field for group characteristics (see http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2013/2013-06.html). 2. DCM Z1 says that it is preferable to take the terms in these fields from LCSH. However, in the case of authors, the term Writer is used, rather than Authors (Writer being the term used in RDA). Which is preferable? The examples in RDA are not prescriptive, they are just illustrative, although they are all in the singular form because they illustrate terms that could be added to an access point, which would be in the singular. While Authors is the LCSH form, another controlled vocabulary might use Writers. LCSH is not prescribed as the sole source of these terms. The DCM Z1 simply says to prefer a controlled vocabular such as LCSH or MeSH. ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
[RDA-L] originally serialized in relationship
I have a graphic novel that says This was originally serialized in Metropolis magazine between 1998 and 2012. On the record for the graphic novel, I'd like to include a relationship to the serial: 730 0_ Metropolis (New York, N.Y.) Any suggestions what an appropriate relationship designator should be. There does not seem to be anything in RDA J.2 that is appropriate, in fact I am not sure that this kind of relationship fall into any of the broad categories of J.2: Derivative Descriptive Whole-Part Accompanying Sequential Whole-Part is probably the closest, since the individual comics that are collected in the graphic novel originally appeared separately in the magazine. But the graphic novel as a whole could not really be said to have been contained in Metropolis, could it? Or is this too nitpicky in my thinking? J.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 I think I will use for now: 730 0_ $i Originally serialized in: $a Metropolis (New York, N.Y.) But I am wondering if this should be proposed for inclusion in RDA and if so, under what category - J.2.4 in the contained in (work) section? --Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
[RDA-L] Spelling of Qur'an
I see that the LC/NACO authority records for Koran have been changed to the form Qurʼan, with an alif. This is the correct Arabic transliteration of the word, but when we were doing the examples for RDA we were told by the JSC to use an apostrophe rather than an alif for all of our examples. We were instructed to use an apostrophe presumably because the apostrophe is commonly used in English language resources. So I'm not sure if the change to an alif was an intentional change or not. If the alif is intentional, then the RDA examples need to be changed too. Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Spelling of Qur'an
No they are different characters and in some fonts they do not display the same (even in OCLC you can see that they are different characters). If you search RDA in the RDA toolkit using the form found in the authority file (copy and paste), you get no results. If you use an apostrophe instead, you get all of the places in RDA where the word occurs. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Gene Fieg wrote: Does it display the same? And are the unicodes the same? On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: I see that the LC/NACO authority records for Koran have been changed to the form Qurʼan, with an alif. This is the correct Arabic transliteration of the word, but when we were doing the examples for RDA we were told by the JSC to use an apostrophe rather than an alif for all of our examples. We were instructed to use an apostrophe presumably because the apostrophe is commonly used in English language resources. So I'm not sure if the change to an alif was an intentional change or not. If the alif is intentional, then the RDA examples need to be changed too. Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ -- 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] Place names in 370
The DCM Z1 says to remove terms for jurisdiction or other distinguishing terms. So: Korea not Korea (South) Russia not Russia (Federation) and Linyi, Shandong Sheng, China without the qualifier South ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, John Hostage wrote: We came across another issue with putting place names in the 370 in the form used in a qualifier. There is a place established as: Linyi (Shandong Sheng, China : South) How does that get entered in 370 $e? Linyi, Shandong Sheng, China ? What happens with the South part? (There is another Linyi in the northern part of the province.) Is the place established correctly according to RDA? It's complicated by the fact that the authority record seems to conflate the Shi (2nd order administrative division) with the populated place. -- 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) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
Except, think about how people are going to cite such a work in their research. I doubt many take the bib record from our catalogs and use that. Instead they will probably look at the book in hand, see only a copyright date, and record that year in their bibliographies. Two, five, ten years from now, that book is going to be seen in the scholarly community as from 2014, not from 2013. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Will Evans wrote: I am not a RDA guru either and perhaps I am too rare book centric in my thinking, but I do not understand the need to perpetuate the myth that the publication date is 2014, when the resource was clearly published in 2013. The resource may not state that it is published in 2013, but by the fact that it is on my desk waiting to be cataloged in 2013, I can conclude that it was indeed published in 2013, despite the presence of a copyright date of 2014. Moreover, I would argue that the RDA definition of publication date is consistent with this line of thought, as we know the resource was released in 2013. Date of Publication: A date associated with the publication, release, or issuing of a resource. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans ev...@bostonathenaeum.org wrote: Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the situation?! 264#1 $c [2013] 264#4 $c (c) 2014 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing itself, yes? (I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk. does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002], c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice of supplied date, I think.) Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling would be to go with what Deborah recommended. -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459
Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
Field 046 could be used to record the creation date of the work, and could certainly be indexed and displayed. You could also still use field 534 in RDA I think. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Flynn, Emily wrote: With RDA, reproductions in a new format (such as microform) shift cataloging focus to the manifestation in hand rather than the original content the new format conveys. The same was true in the switch from AACR(1) to AACR2 but an LCRI allowed for the use of a 533 reproduction note enabling the cataloger to catalog the original material's information. However, there doesn't seem to be a LCPS, at least not yet, to the same effect. Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the original only gets noted in a 776 field, where it seems that the original dates of the material won't be indexed for user searches in the catalog. The 264, 300, and fixed fields, etc., will contain the publisher/producer of the current microform manifestation in hand, losing the date and publisher of the original content held in such fields previously (via the LCRI). Also along these lines, could names and corporate bodies associated with the original still be given access points in 7xx fields and if so what's the best $e/$4 for them...bibliographical antecedent? How do users find the 1500 rare book that's now scanned to microform in 2012 or a government report released in 2009 but filmed as a reproduction in 2013? Has anyone else dealt with this? Perhaps this will be resolved somewhat, for rare books at least, when DCRM(B) new guidelines are released for RDA. Is there other ways to include the original content in the bibliographical record of the new format's manifestation better so as not to lose the essence of the content when it's viewed? Thanks! Emily Emily Flynn, Catalog Librarian, Content Operations ProQuest | 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346 | Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA | +1 734 707 2422 emily.fl...@proquest.commailto:emily.fl...@proquest.com www.proquest.com ProQuest ... Start here. 2012 InformationWeek 500 Top Innovator | 2012 Detroit Free Press Michigan Top Workplace
Re: [RDA-L] Victoria
Actually if you are recording the state of Victoria in the 370, current policy and RDA instructions tell you to use the abbreviations for places in Appendix B.11, which means that you would record the form that would be used if the place were being added as a qualifier: Vic. Recording Victoria spelled out is not correct according to current policy. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Ian Fairclough wrote: RDA-L readers, A little more grist for the mill. While recording Victoria in field 370 of a NAR, I spent a little time looking for the qualifier. Turns out that the Australian state doesn't have one, see n 79046608. The conclusion: it, and it alone, is the unqualified Victoria. So, perhaps it should be recorded as: 370 Australia--Victoria (But DCM Z1 370 says nothing of the sort!) My understanding is that Victoria is a neighborhood in London adjoining the eponymous rail and coach stations along Buckingham Palace Road. If you find an authority record for it, you deserve high honor, if not reward. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
I've always had a problem with considering ETDs published, although I understand that for practical purposes it is easier to consider everything available via remote access as published. But I really don't see an electronic dissertation as anything less of a manuscript than a printed one. Particularly in the case of a printed thesis that has been scanned and posted online as a reproduction - is this really published now? If one were to run a macro such as OCLC has to generate the record for the digitized version off of the manuscript record, it would not have a place of publication or a publisher - these would have to be added as part of the process, and that seems unnecessary to me and others I've spoken with. We've been coding our ETDs in our digital repository as manuscript material. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Myers, John F. wrote: Which perhaps begs the question of why have two different Type codes for the same kind of content? (Which I acknowledge is an encoding and communication format question rather than an RDA question.) John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623 --- On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Joan Milligan wrote: I believe the Type should be a not t, because a dissertation is considered published when it appears online.
Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
Even printed theses by computer have always been considered unpublished manuscripts rather than published textual monographs, so I am not sure that it matters if one has a printout from the computer file or a digital image of the file contents. Theses are produced in one or a very few number of copies, without editorial review or peer review in the same way that published monographs are made. I just see digital theses as analogous to their print equivalents. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Adam I remember that I asked the question before, and got an answer Yes. If we do not consider ETDs published, do we consider them manuscripts? The following is the definition of manuscript from RDA Toolkit: 1) In general, a text, musical score, map, etc., inscribed or written entirely by hand, or the handwritten or typescript copy of a creator’s work. 2) In the context of production method for manuscripts, any handwritten manuscript which is not a holograph. Based on the definition, isn't it hard to consider ETDs manuscripts? I am also wondering that. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: I've always had a problem with considering ETDs published, although I understand that for practical purposes it is easier to consider everything available via remote access as published. But I really don't see an electronic dissertation as anything less of a manuscript than a printed one. Particularly in the case of a printed thesis that has been scanned and posted online as a reproduction - is this really published now? If one were to run a macro such as OCLC has to generate the record for the digitized version off of the manuscript record, it would not have a place of publication or a publisher - these would have to be added as part of the process, and that seems unnecessary to me and others I've spoken with. We've been coding our ETDs in our digital repository as manuscript material. ^^** Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Myers, John F. wrote: Which perhaps begs the question of why have two different Type codes for the same kind of content? (Which I acknowledge is an encoding and communication format question rather than an RDA question.) John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623 --**--**--- On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Joan Milligan wrote: I believe the Type should be a not t, because a dissertation is considered published when it appears online. -- 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] Multiple identities named on same manifestation
Deborah: See 6.27.4.1 Construct additional variant access points if considered important for access. Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia Authorized access point for the work: Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia. Novel originally published under the pseudonym E.V. Cunningham; authors real name, Howard Fast, appears on some resources embodying the work, but the identity most frequently used is Cunningham Jeanne-Claude, 1935- . Wrapped Reichstag Authorized access point for the work: Christo, 1935- . Wrapped Reichstag. A work of art created jointly by Christo and Jeanne-Claude. Variant access point considered important for subject access ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Deborah Fritz wrote: I am probably just missing it, but I cannot find the RDA instruction that tells us to make a Variant Access Point using the other name used in association with a work; i.e., where does it say *in RDA* to make the 400, in the Authority Record example that Adam sent: - A real life example is name authority record LCCN no2004010236: 100 1_ $a Rampling, Anne, $d 1941- $t Exit to Eden 400 1_ $a Rice, Anne, $d 1941- $t Exit to Eden -- I can find that instruction in AACR, at 22.2B3, but I cannot find a corresponding instruction in RDA, and I think it might perhaps be missing. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -Original Message- From: Adam L. Schiff Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:56 PM [snip] The name in the 100 should be whichever one is the result from applying 6.27.1.7. The other name should NOT be included as an access point, because, at least in theory, the authority record for the work would have that as a variant access point for the authorized access point for the work. A real life example is name authority record LCCN no2004010236: 100 1_ $a Rampling, Anne, $d 1941- $t Exit to Eden 400 1_ $a Rice, Anne, $d 1941- $t Exit to Eden [snip]
[RDA-L] Question on 16.2.2.11
I have a question regarding the new instruction 16.2.2.11 on overseas territories, dependencies, etc. that is included in 6JSC/ALA/19/Sec final (online at http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-19-Sec-final.pdf). Does this instruction change the way that the access points for the British Crown dependencies of Guernsey and Jersey will be constructed? And I am also wondering whether the Channel Islands would be considered a jurisdiction in RDA. The current AACR2 headings are: Channel Islands (n 81104069) Guernsey (Channel Islands) (n 82098821) Jersey (Channel Islands) (n 79086822) From information in Wikipedia, the Channel Islands do not appear to be a jurisdiction, just an island group (archipelago). They include two separate British Crown dependencies, the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey. (The third Crown dependency, the Isle of Man, is in the Irish Sea). All three dependencies are self-governing and independently administered jurisdictions. The Crown dependencies article in Wikipedia says: Since 1290, the Channel Islands have been governed as: the Bailiwick of Jersey, comprising the island of Jersey and uninhabited islets such as the Minquiers and crhous the Bailiwick of Guernsey comprising the islands of Guernsey, Sark, Alderney, Brecqhou, Herm, Jethou and Lihou. The CIA's The World Factbook online also has separate entries for Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey, i.e. no entry for a jurisdiction of Channel Islands. It appears from this information and the instruction in RDA 16.2.2.11 that the access points for Jersey and Guernsey would be changed to unqualified places, but I'm wondering if this is a correct assumption? And it also appears that Channel Islands are not a jurisdiction at all and should be in the subject file rather than the names file. Thanks, Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Multiple identities named on same manifestation
The relevant RDA instruction is 6.27.1.7 Different Identities for an Individual Responsible for a Work. If: an individual responsible for a work has more than one identity (see 9.2.2.8) and there is no consistency in how that individual is identified on resources embodying the work then: construct the authorized access point representing the work by combining (in this order): a) the authorized access point representing the identity most frequently used on resources embodying the work (see 9.19.1) b) the preferred title for the work (see 6.2.2). If the identity used most frequently cannot be readily determined, construct the authorized access point representing the work by combining (in this order): a) the authorized access point representing the identity appearing in the most recent resource embodying the work b) the preferred title for the work (see 6.2.2). ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Lori Van Deman-Iseri wrote: Hi there, I have in hand an item that I'm not quite sure how to treat under RDA. It was originally published under a pseudonym which the author only used for the series that it was a part of. The series is now being republished under the author's current pen name, with the statement on the title page Ruth Sims writing as R. J. Hamilton. The current pen name (Ruth Sims) is very prominent, but since the records for the old edition use the pseudonym, as does the authority record for the series, I don't want to confuse things. I understand from chapter 9 that pseudonyms are treated as separate identities, but I'm having a hard time finding instructions that address situations where more than one identity of a single person is named on one piece. Which name should be in the 100 field? Should both names be included as access points? All advice appreciated in advance! Thanks, Lori Lori Van Deman-Iseri Cataloging Librarian Tigard Public Library lo...@tigard-or.gov 503.718.2658 DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules ?City General Records Retention Schedule.?
Re: [RDA-L] Multiple identities named on same manifestation
I didn't answer Lori's specific questions when I cited the relevant RDA instruction. The name in the 100 should be whichever one is the result from applying 6.27.1.7. The other name should NOT be included as an access point, because, at least in theory, the authority record for the work would have that as a variant access point for the authorized access point for the work. A real life example is name authority record LCCN no2004010236: 100 1_ $a Rampling, Anne, $d 1941- $t Exit to Eden 400 1_ $a Rice, Anne, $d 1941- $t Exit to Eden It has this justification: 670$a OCLC 11159573: Exit to Eden, 1985 $b (Anne Rampling) 670$a OCLC 34232466: Exit to Eden, 1996, c1985 $b (Anne Rice writing as Anne Rampling) 670$a OCLC, Feb. 19, 2013 $b (Anne Rampling is the identity most frequently used on resources embodying the work) ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Lori Van Deman-Iseri wrote: Hi there, I have in hand an item that I'm not quite sure how to treat under RDA. It was originally published under a pseudonym which the author only used for the series that it was a part of. The series is now being republished under the author's current pen name, with the statement on the title page Ruth Sims writing as R. J. Hamilton. The current pen name (Ruth Sims) is very prominent, but since the records for the old edition use the pseudonym, as does the authority record for the series, I don't want to confuse things. I understand from chapter 9 that pseudonyms are treated as separate identities, but I'm having a hard time finding instructions that address situations where more than one identity of a single person is named on one piece. Which name should be in the 100 field? Should both names be included as access points? All advice appreciated in advance! Thanks, Lori Lori Van Deman-Iseri Cataloging Librarian Tigard Public Library lo...@tigard-or.gov 503.718.2658 DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules ?City General Records Retention Schedule.?
Re: [RDA-L] Use of subfield $b in 336, 337, 338
If you are using OCLC Connexion, there is a macro to supply these fields and it supplies both the term and code in $a and $b. So that is one reason you are seeing both in many records. LC's policy for its catalogers (see DCM B.13.13.2) is to record the term in $a, but if $b is present in copy they will accept it rather than delete it. If only $b is present, they will add $a. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Michael Borries wrote: Dear collective wisdom, My apologies, because I believe this has been asked and answered before, but I cannot find the relevant emails. At this point is it considered necessary in fields 336-338 to use both subfield $a with the term spelled out and also subfield $b with the code, or is subfield $a with the term spelled out sufficient? I seem to see both usages in various records and instructions. Many thanks for your help. Michael 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] 502 coding in RDA
In RDA, each of the bits you described is actually a separate element, which is why the separate subfielding in MARC is needed, so that you can actually record the RDA elements called for. 7.9.2 Academic Degree 7.9.3 Granting Institution or Faculty 7.9.4 Year Granted That being said, the LC-PCC Policy Statement for 7.9.1.3 that says Record the sub-elements related to dissertation or thesis information as described in RDA in the appropriate subfield of MARC field 502, without AACR2-style punctuation between the sub-elements is going to be labeled as LC practice. The PCC policy will be to leave the method for recording this information to cataloger judgment. We haven't yet decided how we will record dissertation notes, but I suspect we will follow LC. Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC wrote: I am trying to make a local decision on the 502 for our catalog in preparation for RDA training. I remember some discussions on this topic a month and 2 ago am hoping to hear that someone has come up with a good solution since. We would like to start coding the 502 subfields, but as best we can tell, our catalog, Ex Libris, is not able to generate punctuation that is not in the catalog record. Our public services librarians would very much like to retain as close to our current standard thesis note as possible. I understand (or assume at least there is) the assumption that systems will eventually be able to add the desired punctuation to this note. But what I do not understand about the RDA admonition to remove punctuation from the 502 in particular, is how local systems are handling this currently. Under AACR2, a sample free text 502 reads: ?a Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. Which of course generates this display: Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. The closest we can get to this, with RDA coding is: ?b M. of Military Art and Science ?g General Studies ?c U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ?d 2012. With a helpful system-generated label, we get: Dissertation Note: Master of Military Art and Science General Studies U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 2012. Are other libraries just accepting this? Continuing with the |a free text field full punctuation? Adding punctuation to the subfields? Is there some other option I've not though of? It seems a shame not to start coding this field for our local theses especially as we start working with RDA, but I'm not liking the options I feel I have here to bring to my colleagues. I'd be interested in what other libraries that catalog a lot of dissertations are doing with their 502s. Thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Authority Records -- See From
What you're most likely to see are: $w nne [used for former established heading; valid code in both AACR2 and RDA] $w nna [used for pre-AACR2 heading that is valid as an AACR2 reference] $w nnaa [used for pre-AACR2 heading not valid as an AACR2 reference, so shouldn't be displayed] $w nnea [used for former valid AACR2 heading not valid as an RDA reference, so shouldn't be displayed; this was also used in AACR2 when Wade-Giles was converted to pinyin - the Wade-Giles established form was made a reference] ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Miranda Nero wrote: Hi all, I've been noticing a $wn in the see-from fields in RDA authority records, and I'm not sure what the rest of the codes mean (nea, nna, etc..) I've found the explanation of what the subfield means, but I can't seem to find a list of what the codes in the subfield mean. Could anyone direct me to a list or set of guidelines for those codes? Thanks so much! Miranda ___ Miranda Nero OSL Cataloger mn...@oslri.net 401-738-2200 x108 Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too hard to read. -Groucho Marx
Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts
For each resource you must name the work embodied in the resource. That can be done with an authorized access point (e.g. in MARC 130, or 100/240, or it can be implied with 100/245 (or 245 alone) when the title portion of the authorized access point of the work is identical to the manifestation title. As to whether to name the revised edition using the title of the previous edition or not, I found this in RDA: If the work is presented simply as an edition of the previously existing work, treat it as an expression of that work. Use the authorized access point representing the previously existing work. If it is considered important to identify the particular expression, construct an authorized access point representing the expression as instructed at 6.27.3 But this instruction is at 6.27.1.6 and deals specifically with Commentary, Annotations, Illustrative Content, Etc., Added to a Previously Existing Work. So I'm not sure if this applies in your case. In the RDA NACO bridge training, in demonstration 8.b, there is an example of a dictionary that changed titles between editions, and a 130 is given for the original work, without any expression elements added to it. When I inquired about that, Melanie Polutta explained LC's policy: if I was really implementing RDA to its fullest, then I would be adding an expression element to the revised edition authorized access point, from the Other distinguishing characteristic of Expression to make those expressions unique, the same as we do currently for language expressions. But right now, in MARC, that would create more work than it is worth, for the same reason that LC is currently choosing NOT to create unique NAR's for every variant translation in the same language. TOO MUCH WORK. I COULD be creating a 130/240 for those revised editions that would be Name. Title of Work (Revised edition), with all the NAR's implied. But the sheer number of NAR's there is really not to be considered at this point. So what we have focused on is that the variant expressions in the same language all need to be unified under the authorized access point based on Title of Work, thus the use of the 130, where we never used it before, and the need for an NAR when using a 240. So I think the answer to your question Gene, is that there should be a 240 with the title portion of the authorized access point for the earlier edition. I'm assuming that Greer is the first named creator of both? If not, the 100 field would be the creator of the earlier edition. All this is presuming that what we have is an expression of the same work, rather than a new work. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Damian Iseminger wrote: Authorized access points are not required in RDA. The decision to use them is up to you. In your case it might be a good idea to create one. Damian Iseminger Head of Cataloging New England Conservatory From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu wrote: I asked this question before, but we might as well go with RDA in this matter. Book in hand: A brief history of the Western world / Thomas H. Greer, Gavin Lewis. Prev. title: A brief history of Western man. Under RDA do we need a preferred access point (i.e. u.t.) for this? Chapter 6 ain't too clear and I don't see an LCCPS on this. LC has classed both under the same class using the same cutter. -- 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. -- 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] Change of title, not content : RDA experts
Thanks for locating the documentation on this Daniel. But we shouldn't be expected to have to try to find it there - it needs to be in the LC-PCC PSs where catalogers can be expected to look once they have been trained in RDA. Hopefully someone from LC PSD is reading this and can put something in the policy statements! ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Paradis Daniel wrote: LC's RDA training materials provides the answer to your question (see http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/Module3ExpressionsAndContentSept12.doc, Appendix 2). The examples provided indicate that a uniform title would be used to collocate the editions if following LC practice: C. New title proper, and the work has been revised o new expression o UT field for original preferred title -- change from AACR2 (related work a.e.) Example A: Original: 100 $a Monson, Craig. 245 $a Disembodied voices : $b music and culture in an early modern Italian convent / $c Craig A. Monson. 260 $a Berkeley : $b University of California Press, $c 1995. Revision: 100 $a Monson, Craig. 240 $a Disembodied voices 245 $a Divas in the convent : $b nuns, music, and defiance in seventeenth-century Italy / $c Craig A. Monson. 260 $a Chicago : $b University of Chicago Press, $c 2012. 500 $a Revision of the author's Disembodied voices. Example B: Original: 245 $a Contemporary art and multicultural education / $c edited by Susan Cahan and Zoya Kucor. 260 $a New York : $b New Museum of Contemporary Art : $b Routledge, $c 1996. Revision: 130 $a Contemporary art and multicultural education 245 $a Rethinking Contemporary Art and Multicultural Education / $c The New Museum of Contemporary Art. 250 $a Fully revised second edition. 260 $a New York, NY : $b Routledge, $c 2011. Daniel Paradis Biblioth?caire Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Biblioth?que et Archives nationales du Qu?bec 2275, rue Holt Montr?al (Qu?bec) H2G 3H1 T?l?phone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721 T?l?copieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.ca/ De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Gene Fieg Envoy? : 19 f?vrier 2013 14:12 ? : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: I asked this question before, but we might as well go with RDA in this matter. Book in hand: A brief history of the Western world / Thomas H. Greer, Gavin Lewis. Prev. title: A brief history of Western man. Under RDA do we need a preferred access point (i.e. u.t.) for this? Chapter 6 ain't too clear and I don't see an LCCPS on this. LC has classed both under the same class using the same cutter. -- 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. -- 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] Change of title, not content : RDA experts
Probably John, but the example illustrates the more simple case of two editions with the identical title. It's obviously more of a judgment call if you have versions with different titles, but hopefully the later version clearly states that it is just a revision of the earlier edition. Maybe it would be good to add an additional example at this part of that instruction. I'll suggest it to the RDA Examples Group. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, John Hostage wrote: Isn't this covered by the last part of RDA 6.27.1.5? -- 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 Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 16:37 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts Thanks for locating the documentation on this Daniel. But we shouldn't be expected to have to try to find it there - it needs to be in the LC- PCC PSs where catalogers can be expected to look once they have been trained in RDA. Hopefully someone from LC PSD is reading this and can put something in the policy statements! ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Paradis Daniel wrote: LC's RDA training materials provides the answer to your question (see http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Tr aining/Module3ExpressionsAndContentSept12.doc, Appendix 2). The examples provided indicate that a uniform title would be used to collocate the editions if following LC practice: C. New title proper, and the work has been revised o new expression o UT field for original preferred title -- change from AACR2 (related work a.e.) Example A: Original: 100 $a Monson, Craig. 245 $a Disembodied voices : $b music and culture in an early modern Italian convent / $c Craig A. Monson. 260 $a Berkeley : $b University of California Press, $c 1995. Revision: 100 $a Monson, Craig. 240 $a Disembodied voices 245 $a Divas in the convent : $b nuns, music, and defiance in seventeenth-century Italy / $c Craig A. Monson. 260 $a Chicago : $b University of Chicago Press, $c 2012. 500 $a Revision of the author's Disembodied voices. Example B: Original: 245 $a Contemporary art and multicultural education / $c edited by Susan Cahan and Zoya Kucor. 260 $a New York : $b New Museum of Contemporary Art : $b Routledge, $c 1996. Revision: 130 $a Contemporary art and multicultural education 245 $a Rethinking Contemporary Art and Multicultural Education / $c The New Museum of Contemporary Art. 250 $a Fully revised second edition. 260 $a New York, NY : $b Routledge, $c 2011.
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
Heidrun, I agree - it's not clear. I'm not sure there's anything better than to transcribe the first name and then make a note about any other significant creators that you want to provide access points for. Something along the lines of: 245 / by John Smith [and 15 others] 500 Other significant creators: Robert Jones, Mary Roberts, Bill Hanson. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Adam, I think the problem with this solution is that it's not so easy to interpret: The marks of omission certainly show where names have been left out. But it's not so clear how many names there really were in the list on the source of information: What about the omitted names which are indicated by the ellipses - are these included in the 13 others? Or did the list consist of more than 16 names (i.e. the three transcribed plus the 13 explicitly stated plus an unknown number of names indicated by the ellipses)? Sorry for the hairsplitting... Heidrun Am 07.02.2013 20:56, schrieb Adam L. Schiff: If the point is to transcribe then I don't see how one could accurately transcribe the first, sixth, and fifteenth names without some indication that you've omitting names in between. One could do this perhaps using ellipses: / by John Smith ... Robert Jones ... Louise Jefferson [and 13 others]. But since RDA allows you to provide access points for creators and contributors without naming them in the statement of responsibility, I'm not sure that the instruction needs changing. But perhaps the instruction should say always record the first name in each statement and optionally add any other names considered important. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Barbara Tillett wrote: You are right the rules do not specifically say you can do it, but it is definitely in the spirit of RDA and perhaps you'd like to work with Christine Frodl to propose an adjustment to the way RDA states this? - Barbara I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl and the other members of the German RDA implementation group, and see whether we can submit a proposal. Personally, I'd be very willing to help make RDA conform to its spirit ;-) At first glance, perhaps what's needed is really only a slight change in wording. Benjamin has already suggested omit any but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies instead of omit all but. Another way might be: always record the first name of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Other names may be omitted. An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, e.g.: [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 others] Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting with Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to transcribe not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps especially the ninth and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla Del Ponte and Joschka Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe the statement in question like this (although the three names are not next to each other in the source of information): [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer [and 55 others] Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer? This might get awkward... Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
If the point is to transcribe then I don't see how one could accurately transcribe the first, sixth, and fifteenth names without some indication that you've omitting names in between. One could do this perhaps using ellipses: / by John Smith ... Robert Jones ... Louise Jefferson [and 13 others]. But since RDA allows you to provide access points for creators and contributors without naming them in the statement of responsibility, I'm not sure that the instruction needs changing. But perhaps the instruction should say always record the first name in each statement and optionally add any other names considered important. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Barbara Tillett wrote: You are right the rules do not specifically say you can do it, but it is definitely in the spirit of RDA and perhaps you'd like to work with Christine Frodl to propose an adjustment to the way RDA states this? - Barbara I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl and the other members of the German RDA implementation group, and see whether we can submit a proposal. Personally, I'd be very willing to help make RDA conform to its spirit ;-) At first glance, perhaps what's needed is really only a slight change in wording. Benjamin has already suggested omit any but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies instead of omit all but. Another way might be: always record the first name of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Other names may be omitted. An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, e.g.: [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 others] Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting with Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to transcribe not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps especially the ninth and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla Del Ponte and Joschka Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe the statement in question like this (although the three names are not next to each other in the source of information): [contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer [and 55 others] Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer? This might get awkward... Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Julie, The RDA cutover date applies only to authority records. PCC libraries may continue to describe resources after March 31 using AACR2, but any new name authorities created for the LC/NACO Authority File must be formulated according to RDA instructions. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Julie Moore wrote: Please excuse the cross-posting ... Dear All, It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338 as a replacement for the GMD. I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really do not want to do that.) I know that some people are continuing to catalog using AACR2 and adding in the RDA fields, creating a hybrid record ... mainly so that they can keep the GMD ... until some more satisfactory solution comes about. (I'd rather not do that, either.) Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!) Cheers, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie
Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields
Transcription of copyright date is a core element (Mandatory) if neither the date of publication nor the date of distribution is identified. This is why the LC-PCC Policy Statement tells catalogers to supply a probable publication date as much as possible, rather than recording date of publication not identified. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Michael Cohen wrote: If you use the copyright date to supply the date in 264_1, and adding the copyright date is optional, are there any circumstances under which transcription of the copyright date is mandatory? On 1/11/2013 9:49 AM, Deborah Fritz wrote: *From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Arakawa, Steven *Sent:* Friday, January 11, 2013 10:39 AM [SA]if you have a bracketed date in 264 _1 based on the copyright date, the 264 _4 is optional, if I?m interpreting LC PCC PS correctly */[DF:] Yes, if you use the copyright date to supply the date in 264_1, then adding the copyright date is optional, but I think it is a good thing to add it, as long as the copyright date is straightforward. /* *//* */Deborah/* *//* - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com http://www.marcofquality.com -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typo in the Toolkit
You use the feedback mechanism in Toolkit to report these. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 21 Dec 2012, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: Does anyone know who to contact about a typo in the RDA Toolkit? The following example under 6.2.3.5: ? ?? ? ? ??? ??? English language form recorded as preferred title: Arabian nights The Arabic is backwards; it should be: ? etc. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] Question on Appendix I, relationship designators for corporate bodies
Proposals for new designators may be made through the American Library Association's representative to the Joint Steering Committee [for U.S. libraries]. The Program for Cooperative Cataloging is asking its members to submit proposals for new designators to the chair of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards, and then the committee will review them and forward them on to the appropriate JSC representative. But for non-PCC members in the U.S., you should make suggestions/proposals to the JSC's ALA-rep, John Attig (jx...@psu.edu). ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM wrote: In our rough draft of an ETD template in RDA, we have a note field that's important to us, 538 Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center And a 710 2 OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. We'd like to use a relationship designator after the 710, but don't see one in Appendix I.2.2 that fits exactly. Neither host institution or sponsoring body definitions quite fit. Is this a closed list, so we can't use anything besides the vocabulary provided; or is it an open list, that would enable us to create something like $e archiving institution ? Thank you, Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Asst. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators (with typo corrections; thanks
writer of added commentary ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Goldfarb, Kathie wrote: I have been reading the discussions that there are too many relationship designators, differences between types of editors, etc. However, reading through this list - is there a relationship designator for the person who wrote the foreword? The book in hand is: Thorton Wilder, a life ... foreword by Edward Albee. If I use Edward Albee as an added entry, what relationship designator should I use? Or none? With RDA is it expected that all name added entries have the relationship to the book spelled out? I am using some of the books I am cataloging today to 'practice' some of the RDA changes. Thanks kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 ? Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 12:25 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designators (with typo corrections; thanks) abridger actor addressee animator annotator appellant appellee architect [arranger] arranger of music [consider arranger] art director artist author autographer binder book designer [consider designer] braile embosser broadcaster cartographer caster [cataloguer] cinematographer choreographer collection registrar [consider cataloguer] collector commentator compiler composer conductor costume designer court governed court reporter currator current owner [consider owner] dancer dedicatee dedicator defendant degree granting institution depositor designer director director of photography distributor donor draftsman editor of compilation [consider compiler] editor of moving image work [consider editor] enacting jurisdiction editor engraver etcher film director [consider director] film distributor [consider distributor] filmmaker former owner [consider owner] honouree host host institution illumninator illustrator inscriber instrumentalist interviewee interviewer inventor issuing body judge jurisdiction governed landscape architect librettist l lithographer lyricist moderator musical director narrator on-screen presenter [consider presenter] [owner] panelist performer photographer plaintiff praeses [consider moderator, cf. thesis adviser] presenter printer printmaker producer] production company production designer [consider designer] programmer publisher puppeteer radio director [consider director] radio producer [consider producer] recording engineer respondent restorationist screenwriter sculptor seller singer speaker sponsor sponsoring body stage director [consider director] storyteller surveyor teacher television directory [consider director] television producer [consider producer] [thesis adviser] transcriber translator [writer] writer of added commentary [consider writer] writer of added lyrics [consider lyricist] writer of added text [consider writer]
Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series
Agreed, Chris. The MARC 800/810/811/830 already conveys the designator in series (work) so adding the designator would be redundant. One alternative in MARC would be to use the 7XX for related work, in which case the relationship designator WOULD be useful: 700 1_ $i In series (work): $a Author. $t Title. This would work fine for unnumbered series, but instead of $v used in 8XX, you'd have to use $n in a 7XX. But since we have more specific MARC coding for the series relationship, there's no reason to go the 7XX route. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Chris Rae Todd wrote: I endorse Kevin's reading of this situation as the relationship between a resource and the series that it is part of. I also went back to chapter 6 to look at the instructions for creating authorised access points for works. The basic instruction involves adding the authorized access point for the creator (where there is one) to the preferred title for the the work. The relationship designator doesn't get a mention as part of this structure, so I'm assuming it would not be part of the 800 field. Is that how others see this situation? Chris Chris (Christine) Todd Team Leader, Cataloguing Team 1 National Library of New Zealand The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua Direct Dial: +64 4 474 3093 email: chris.rae.t...@dia.govt.nz -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 7:10 a.m. To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series Lynne J. LaBare wrote: I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the correct way to record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 field. The example I have is as follows: 800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2. Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 correctly. Thank you. What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on RDA instructions in Section 8, Recording Relationships between Works, Expressions, Manifestations, Items, including 24.4.2, Authorized Access Point Representing the Related Work or Expression. This is an access point, dealing with the relationship between related resources (in this case the resource being cataloged and the series of which it is a part). Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the manifestation and is handled in RDA Section 1, Recording Attributes of Manifestation Item, specifically 2.12, Series Statement. Putting the series statement into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, would result in something like this (I'm guessing at what may actually be appearing on the resource): 490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2 Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
One of the first things I noticed was the example that showed Tunnel books as a subject. While this may reflect (incorrect) MARC 21 coding as 650, the resource/work being described is clearly not ABOUT tunnel books, it IS a tunnel book. The correct MARC coding of course would be either 655 and/or 380. Any new framework model needs to understand that genre/form is not the same as subject, and both need to be accommodated. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Relators: $eterms vs. $4codes
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012, J. McRee Elrod wrote: 100/700/110/710 relators One problem we have with both terms and codes is that needed ones are lacking. For example, what code would you use for the agency for which a report was prepared? That agency is certainly NOT an author, although recipient agency was given $eauthor at a recent RDA workshop. I would be tempted to use $4rcp, but I suspect that was intended for the recipient of correspondence; $4oth $eother would help no one. We have many such agencies in the electronic resources we catalogue. We are regularly suggesting new needed designators, and these are generally fasttracked by the JSC. You should submit suggestions/proposals (with definitions) to your JSC rep (CCC/LAC). MARC relator/terms codes can be suggested to LC at nd...@loc.gov. I would like to see the JSC align their terms with MARC codes so that there's a one-to-one correspondence if possible. For now, we've started using the RDA designators even in our AACR2 cataloging instead of the codes, but I think codes are a better way to go in the long run since they are language independent. Adam Schiff
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
If the date of publication and copyright date are the same and both are
recorded, then it is correct to code the Date type as t and give both
dates in the Dates fixed field. The LC-PCC Policy Statement for 2.8.6.6
shows just such an example:
Title page verso
2009
Item received in
2008
Date of publication
not given
Transcription
264 #1 $a $b ... $c [2009]
264 #4 $c 2009
008/06 Type of date
t
008/07-10
2009
008/11-14
2009
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.
Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to t (Publication date and
copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly. Whether there is a
difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
robert Maxwell said:
,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to
record the element that way while recording a copyright date
One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons.
If 264 1 $c and 264 4 $c are the same:
008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005
If 264 1 $c and 264 4 $c differ:
008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
The LC-PCC Policy Statement 2.8.6.6 says: 1. Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. If you supply a probable date, then you don't need to record the copyright date, although you certainly can. So with a c2005 date on your piece, you would do either: 264 _1 $c [2005] Type of date: s Dates: 2005, or you could do: 264 _1 $c [2005] 264 _4 $c (c)2005 Type of date: t Dates: 2005, 2005 The LC-PCC PS also says: 2. If the copyright date is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Sun, 21 Oct 2012, Snow, Karen wrote: I've done a little searching and can't find the answer, so I am hoping the collective wisdom can help me out... If you use [date of publication not identified] in 264_1 $c and you have a copyright date in 264_4 (let's say 2005), how would this look in DtSt and Dates fixed fields? DtSt = t Dates = , 2005 ? Thanks in advance for your help, Karen Karen Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library Information Science Dominican University 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305 ks...@dom.edu 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax)
