Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Patricia,
It shouldn't vary from library to library if catalogers follow the
definitions of the relationship designators and apply the principal of
assigning the most specific designator available. In such a case, I think
most catalogers would arrive at using author.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:04 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
I have to say that I was going with creator myself after reading a few
RDA-list comments. But putting it out locally to our bibliographers, it's
been voted down in favor of author. So I guess it's going to vary from
one library to another. As much of RDA appears to be doing.
//SIGNED//
Patricia Fogler
Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC)
Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center
DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Adam said:
... if the relationship is one of authorship (writing a textual
document) then you should use the designator author that is defined for
that specific purpose.
I doubt most patrons think of corporate bodies or families as writing
a textual document. People write, not corporate bodies or families.
We do our patrons no favours by redefining words to mean what most do
not understand them to mean.
I don't like corporate author any more than do you, so approve of
your suggestion to use $ecreator when a corporate body is in 110,
perhaps #econtributor when in 710, unless some other relationship
applies such as $eissuing body, $ehost institution?
It would help to have the category names in the relator lists, if we
are to use them in that way. Or perhaps the text of this and other
LCPCCPS should be incorporated into RDA?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 240 uniform title
Patricia, If the combination of author + title is identical to another work then a 240 would be needed to differentiate this work from others. Typically only a year is used, not year month date. You only break the conflict when there already is one, not when you expect/suspect there will be one. I'm wonder why you don't just catalog it as a serial though, in which case there won't be a conflict. Also, you don't know for sure that Trimble will be the creator of each of the quarterly reports. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 7:18 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 240 uniform title I'm trying to explain the use of a 240 uniform title in a bibliographic record clearly to my staff. I have a tenuous grasp on uniform titles and welcome any direction to specific training in depth about the choices of MARC tags in different situations. I understand that the title in question Nuclear weapons : ‡b factors leading to cost increases with the uranium processing facility (OCLC863158972 for those with access) is the first of a predicted quarterly report. Is it disingenuous to ask whether it was appropriate to create this 240 in the record for the first of the series when RDA LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9 says under General: Do not predict a conflict. My understanding is that one waited until the 2nd report (the conflict) appeared in order to make the uniform title in this situation. Or alternatively; create a serial record. Can someone clarify? Many 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 imprint revision
I think technically it is NOT possible to use 264 _2 and 264 _3 with 264 _0
in an RDA-coded record, because distribution and manufacture elements in RDA
are defined as pertaining only to published resources. This may be an area
in RDA that needs revision, but the definitions given in RDA are quite
clear.
2.9.1.1 A distribution statement is a statement identifying the place or
places of distribution, distributor or distributors, and date or dates of
distribution of a resource in a published form.
2.10.1.1 A manufacture statement is a statement identifying the place or
places of manufacture, manufacturer or manufacturers, and date or dates of
manufacture of a resource in a published form.
Manufacture statements include statements relating to the printing,
duplicating, casting, etc., of a resource in a published form.
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:01 PM
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
Adam responded to my statement:
RDA as now written does not require a not identified publisher
statement (264 1) when recording producer (264 0)
That is because it would be contrary to the definitions, Mac.
Production in RDA is limited only to unpublished resources. It can't
simultaneously be published (264 _1) and unpublished (264 _0).
Exactly!! That's my point!!!
iPads and rocks are not published either. It should also be possible
to use 264 3 and 264 2 without a 264 1, just as it is for 264 0.
Resources may be manufactured or distributed without being published,
just as they may be produced without being published. We should not
stretch the meaning of publish beyond all reason.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Home country rule
In RDA there is no home country rule to follow. Either record just the first place, or record all of the places. Any other practice would lead us back to records that aren’t completely compatible or shareable internationally, because agencies in different countries would not produce the same thing and might need to edit these elements. The beauty of RDA here is that everyone gets a result that can be shared without need for editing. I believe Library of Congress is only recording the first place as a matter of course, but that catalogers are free to go beyond the minimum and record all. Example: On title page: London – Buffalo – Toronto In AACR2, British, U.S., and Canadian libraries would record the place of publication in three different ways. This is problematic especially in a shared database with a master record, like OCLC. In RDA, all of them would record either London or London ; Buffalo ; Toronto. I have generally been opting to record all of the places. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Seth Huber Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Home country rule Hi all, Does anyone have any best practices with the home country rule from AACR2, which has not carried over into RDA? I have seen it both ways in records from various sources; some people follow the RDA rule of only giving the first named, and others follow AACR2 rules. What are others doing with this? Thanks, Seth Seth Huber University Library Specialist/090 Cataloger Western Carolina University
Re: [RDA-L] reprint relationships
I think this has to do with printing and doesn’t need to be considered a new manifestation, unless you have additional evidence that there is something else different between the 2008 printing and the 2010 paperback printing such as different extent, a different edition statement, a different publisher, etc. It doesn’t sound like something that users would consider bibliographically significant enough that they would prefer one printing over another. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Julie Moore Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 7:37 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] reprint relationships Adam, This reminds me of my recent post on Autocat ... that uses the phrase Transferred to digital printing 2010. I guess I am still pondering exactly what that means - and how this falls into the FRBR terms. Julie (Please excuse the cross-posting.) Book in hand ... Title: International organizations and implementation : enforcers, managers, authorities ISBN: 0415599660 Paperback Transferred to digital printing 2010. -- T.p. verso. The ISBN brings up a several interesting records in OCLC, each with their own problems. All of these had the date 2010. When I did a title search, I found a DLC record that looked like a perfect match to me although it had the ISBN for a hardback and an ebook, but not the paperback, with the date of 2008. (I ended up adding our holdings to this record #128236964, and I added the ISBN for the pbk in our local catalog.) My question is about that statement on the title page verso: Transferred to digital printing 2010. In my mind, this seems more like a printing date, so I ignored it ... moving on to the publication date, 2008. Has anyone seen that phrase before? Transferred to digital printing 2010.-- And how are we to handle it? Thanks kindly, Julie Moore On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: In RDA Appendix J reprinted as and reprint of (manifestation) are listed hierarchically under reproduced as and reproduction of (manifestation). I have a 2010 large print edition of a book originally published in 2003. The manifestation in hand says This optimized ReadHowYouWant edition contains the complete, unabridged text of the original publisher's edition. Other aspects of the book may vary from the original edition. I was considering including a 775 field in the RDA record for the large print with the relationship designator reprint of (manifestation) and a description of the 2003 edition. However large print editions are not reproductions, so the placement of reprinted as (manifestation) hierarchically under reproduction of (manifestation) seems suspect to me. Reprints are clearly equivalent manifestations, but not necessarily reproductions. Shouldn't reprinted as and reprint of (manifestation) be taken out of the reproduction hierarchies in Appendix J? 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 ~~ -- 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] Prize winners in authority records
Richard, Interesting, although I find it to be a bit of a stretch to say that using terms like this in 368 $c connotes an “other designation” in the RDA sense. Although the field is defined as “Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body”, I think I’d prefer a new subfield for “other attribute” rather than “other designation” which is RDA terminology. Or else perhaps rename the subfield $c as “Other attribute” which would be more understandable to put terms like Nobel Prize winner. But the more I think about it, however, I can almost see how terms like this could even be used (in the singular) in a $c qualifier in an access point to break a conflict. I think I’ve come around (didn’t take long!) but I think we should rename 368 $c “Other attribute” or “Other attribute or designation”. Adam From: Moore, Richard Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 12:52 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records Adam Although you can’t do this: 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 You can put these terms in 368: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 368 $c Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 368 $c Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh The reason we argued at MARBI (as was) that 386 should be limited to name-title authorities is that in the personal NAR, controlled vocabularies are already used in 368 and 374 to record the same kinds of thing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict. But in MARC certainly more than one place can be recorded in the 370 $e. I think a simple fix would be to propose a wording change to 11.3.3.3 that says record the name of the local place or places ... My guess is that the editor and JSC just never considered that more than one local place would/could be associated with a corporate body other than a conference. Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries asch...@uw.edu -Original Message- From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 12:06 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place? Can it really be that 11.3.3.3 allows only for the recording of *one* local place associated with a corporate body? The instruction reads: For other bodies, record the name of the local place that is commonly associated with the name of the body (...). Unlike 11.3.2.3 (Recording location of conference, etc.), there is no explicit provision for recording more than one place (If the conference was held in more than one place, record the names of each of the places in which it was held.). The wording in 11.3.3.3 is also different from e.g. that of 9.11.1.3 (Recording places of residence, etc.), where it says: Record the place or places But then, what about corporate bodies with two (equally important) locations? I'm thinking, for example, of the University of Duisburg-Essen, which is located in two cities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Duisburg-Essen At present, in such a case we record both places in the authority record (the field is repeatable). An extract from the record looks like this (please note that the format of the German authority file is not MARC, although it was based on it): 110 Universität Duisburg-Essen 410 University of Duisburg-Essen 551 Duisburg $4 orta 551 Essen $4 orta (The 551 fields in fact contain links to the authority records for the cities of Duisburg and Essen; the code orta expresses that it is the location of a corporate body). To me, this seems sensible enough, as the university really is associated with both cities in people's minds. It wouldn't be very satisfactory to record only one of them. Also, I really wouldn't know which place should be given precedence in this case. The website gives addresses both in Duisburg and in Essen, and the administration is situated in both campuses as well. I couldn't even find out where the main office of the president is located (and that would be a very arbitrary criterion, wouldn't it). But maybe (hopefully) I have misunderstood the rule, and it is perfectly possible to record several places under this element?? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA
In the structured (or complex) 502, subfield $a is not used. The field
itself means dissertation or thesis, and so the computer system should be
programmed to display the data with a label like Thesis: or something
similar.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
asch...@uw.edu
-Original Message-
From: Basma Chebani
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA
Dear Mr. Elrod,
Thank you all for your clarifications.
I am not sure what to put in 502|a.
Can I use the term Thesis or Dissertation in 502|a ??
At the end of your reply you have mentioned On the other hand, we do not
use the 505 subfields. I think you don't use 502 subfields. Correct?
Thank you.
Basma Chebani
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:14 PM
To: Basma Chebani
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA
Basma Chebani said:
Can anyone help me in deciding which example I have to follow in RDA
for Dissertation Note since both forms are accepted in MARC examples.
This seems more a matter of MARC than RDA.
We use the new 502 subfields, but retain the old punctuation (contra PCC).
So far as we know, none of our clients have ILS which supply the
punctuation. If there ever is such, I hope they are sophisticated enough
not to double the punctuation.
I don't like the omission of Thesis etc. in the examples of subfield coded
502's.
On the other hand, we do not use the 505 subfields.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA
I think it depends on what your system does with the display of the field. If
it provides a label in front of the data like “Thesis:” or “Thesis information”
then adding something in $g is superfluous. Also, can your system display the
text in $g in front of the other data? If not, I think it would just look odd.
Adam
From: Jack Wu
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 5:32 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA
Adam,
As you say, in the structured 502 $a is not used. In which case $g Thesis would
be helpful, incorrect, or superfluous?
Jack
Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
j...@franciscan.edu
Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu 10/25/2013 3:42 AM
In the structured (or complex) 502, subfield $a is not used. The field
itself means dissertation or thesis, and so the computer system should be
programmed to display the data with a label like Thesis: or something
similar.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
asch...@uw.edu
-Original Message-
From: Basma Chebani
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA
Dear Mr. Elrod,
Thank you all for your clarifications.
I am not sure what to put in 502|a.
Can I use the term Thesis or Dissertation in 502|a ??
At the end of your reply you have mentioned On the other hand, we do not
use the 505 subfields. I think you don't use 502 subfields. Correct?
Thank you.
Basma Chebani
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:14 PM
To: Basma Chebani
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA
Basma Chebani said:
Can anyone help me in deciding which example I have to follow in RDA
for Dissertation Note since both forms are accepted in MARC examples.
This seems more a matter of MARC than RDA.
We use the new 502 subfields, but retain the old punctuation (contra PCC).
So far as we know, none of our clients have ILS which supply the
punctuation. If there ever is such, I hope they are sophisticated enough
not to double the punctuation.
I don't like the omission of Thesis etc. in the examples of subfield coded
502's.
On the other hand, we do not use the 505 subfields.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] title page verso in 500 note
I think everyone is still using “verso” and “recto” if appropriate. I wouldn’t try to find a replacement term in this case. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Karen Nelson Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] title page verso in 500 note Hi, everyone; Here is something I have not thought over until now. I am adding a quoted note 500 in an imported copycat bib. I would normally attribute it thus: --T. p. verso Well, no abbrevations, so Title page verso. But, we are avoiding the Latin terms in RDA as often as poss., correct? So what are we calling the verso in layman’s terms? Thanks!
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
RDA doesn't use the term alternate access point. The example that is
being referred to here is in 6.27.4.1 where it is clearly labeled as a
variant access point, i.e. a cross-reference in an authority record:
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; author’s
real name, Howard Fast, appears on some resources embodying the work, but
the identity most frequently used is Cunningham
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Thomas posted:
Implementing these access points in a card catalog produces
Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
see
Cunningham, E.V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
In a card catalogue, Fast is a cross reference, not an alternate
access point.
Even better in a OPAC would be being taken directly from the alternate
form to the form to which the cross reference refers (i.e., the entry
in the record) rather than having to do a double look up as in a card
catalogue.
For me alternate access point should mean an *access* point (i.e. an
entry) in the bibliographic record. An alternate form of name and/or
title may be a see or see also cross reference, but should not be
called an access point. It refers you from a form not chosen as an
access point *to* the form chosen as an access point, but is not an
access point itself.
I will choose to interpret the alternate form example you posted as
the form to be used for a cross reference (authority record for the
work 400), not a form to be entered in the bibliographic record, nor a
form to be established (which would be required if an added entry in
the record). .
Our terminology has become *very* unclear.
Perhaps I should buy a doll, label it Tom Delsey. and stick pins in
it?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities
And really what we need are systems that use the relationships in authority records to offer the user choices. You search for Barbara Vine and the system asks you if you also want to retrieve her real identity Ruth Rendell. Our OPACs don’t do a great job with this yet. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Pamela Dearinger Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities Well, I don't know what to do about that either. I was actually just responding to the following: But I would not like to start seeing records that have a 100 for the named person on the resource and a 700 for the actual author and I meant to say some of us don't pay attention to what we are reading, but I wasn't paying enough attention to what I wrote. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM, McDonald, Stephen steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu wrote: Pamela Dearinger said: OCLC #779266283 is a recent example, not RDA, with a 100 for Vine, Barbara, a 700 for Rendell, Ruth, and this in the 245: Ruth Rendell, writing as Barbara Vine and I find that helpful. Isn't it good for people to know that Vine is a pseudonym for Rendell, and to see that multiple times, because we don't all pay much otherwise. I'm thinking as a reader, looking for a book by an author I am familiar with, but not necessarily familiar with the pseudonyms. Unfortunately, that is probably a direct quotation from the title page of the book. That doesn't help us decide how to deal with cases where the book itself does not tell us the name is a pseudonym. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
Would they also send back a record with a 240 with the original title plus a
language for a translation when the original title doesn't appear on the
resource? If you're gonna code a record as RDA, then I think you need to
adhere to the standard. Especially when contributing a record to a shared
database. What one does in ones local catalog is completely different, but
we would not be happy to find copy with the practice you're suggesting, Mac.
We would instruct catalogers here to upgrade the record to the standard.
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:18 AM
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
Adam said:
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.
I would substitute according to present rules you would for have
to above.
Our small library clients would send that record back to us saying the
240 does not appear on the item. The chance of any of them having the
two is very slim, so no need for the 240 to being them together. They
will accept a 246 1 $iOriginally issued as:$a, so that anyone
searching by the original title will find it. Field 246 is indexed in
more ILS than 240. due to the large number of form 240s useless for
access.
Rules are a means to and end, not an end in themselves.
I agree that no relationship designator is appropriate. No 700
duplicating the 100 is needed.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Such cross-references belong in authority records, but there are going to be
times when you simply don’t know who the actual author is. For example, Kermit
the Frog’s books just say they are by him. There is nothing to cross-reference
unless one does extensive research to determine who the actual author is, if
that is possible. RDA does not allow you to add bracketed “[i.e. ]”
statements of responsibility. It would permit you to add a note, however,
something like “Actual author: ”. But I would not like to start seeing
records that have a 100 for the named person on the resource and a 700 for the
actual author. Those should be cross-refs in authority records I think.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
From: Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 11:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Mac,
I am concerned that in all our discussions of fictitious characters as
preferred access points, our many patrons will be confused (not to mention
bemused) by the direction we are taking. That said, I like your idea of adding
the Rowling cross reference to Biddle. That would neatly direct the patron who
actually searched for works by J.K. Rowling to Biddle the Bard. BTW the
fictitious character is Geronimo Stilton.
Thanks for your input! I save most of your comments in my RDA folder--along
with Bob Maxwell's and other frequent contributors who know far more about RDA
than I ever will.
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
On 10/14/2013 11:25 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Martin Kelleher wrote:
Thinking about it that way sadly doesn;t make it sound any less
ridiculous.
Entering Rowling under Biddle is no more ridiculous than entering
Clemens under Twain. Mark Twain is a Mississippi River boaters'
call, no more a person than Geronimo Chilton.
While I would favour including in the statement of responsibility
[i.e. Samuel L. Clemens], or [i.e. J. K. Rowling], RDA purists
would not approve. We are dependent on authority cross references.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
inline: ATT1
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
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?
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
The first one is simply incorrect and should be fixed. The other designation element (Fictitious character) should be coded in $c of the personal name. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 7:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I'm working through today's name authority changes wondering why I'm finding: ‡a Wiggin, Ender (Fictitious character) but ‡a Wiggin, Peter ‡c (Fictitious character) Is this simply two different agencies interpreting the rules differently? We don't catalog a lot of fiction here so I've not much experience with fictitious characters. I do edit our base library records occasionally they have a number of Card's titles. I'd send this to LChelp4rda but I am guessing they are not back at work as yet. //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 6.2.2.10 (was: alternative titles and variant access points)
(If a compilation of works is known by a title that is used in resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.4–6.2.2.5) One class example is Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. This compilation of poems is so well known by its title that it would be used instead of Poems. Selections. Another example might be James Michener’s Tales of the South Pacific, which is a collection of sequentially related short stories. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 4:32 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10 (was: alternative titles and variant access points) Trying to follow this thread (which is a rather difficult one for somebody not cataloging in MARC), it occured to me that it touches upon something which has puzzled me for some time. Kevin wrote: Nature is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections The Sea is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections This is contrary to RDA, which requires that there be something to distinguish them. Interestingly, these examples actually lead me to that other discussion that's been going on, about RDA 6.2.2.10. What titles are these works *known* by? I very strongly argue that the preferred titles for these works should be Nature and The sea, since that is what everyone knows them by (the creator, the publisher, bookstores, library selectors, researchers, etc.). It makes considerably more sense to have the following AAPs: Smith, John. Nature Smith, John. Sea and, in another mail on this thread: That is an incredibly strict reading of the word resources in 6.2.2.10. I *truly* cannot believe that the JSC intended that the first sentence in that guideline meant that the original title appearing on a compilation could only be used as the preferred title if there were more than one manifestation! By following such logic, *any* collection published for the first time would need to get 6.2.2.10.1-3 treatment, if it were cataloged right after publication; but if we waited for a while, and it were republished, then we'd look to see if the titles on the two manifestations were the same, and if so we could then follow 6.2.2.4-5. Bizarre... I really believe that 6.2.2.10 is basically meant for things that lack any collective title (the example in 6.2.2.10.3 seems to imply this), collections that have generic titles only, or (if being cataloged retrospectively) have come to be known by generic titles (e.g., generally referenced by generic titles in trade media, scholarly resources, etc.). Does anybody know for sure which cases should be treated according to the first sentence of 6.2.2.10 (If a compilation of works is known by a title that is used in resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.4–6.2.2.5) and not according to 6.2.2.10.1-6.2.2.10.3? My assumption was that usually you'd use the rules under .1-.3, and that the first sentence refers to fairly rare cases. I further assumed that in these cases, the compilation needs some long-established title, but wasn't able to come up with an example. As usual, when you'd need an example in RDA, there isn't one.. Now Kevin argues, if I understand correctly, that every compilation with a non-generic, distinct title (i.e. something different from Three novels or The complete works of ...) should be treated according to the first sentence, and I can see his point. So, I wonder: What is the function of the first sentence in 6.2.2.10? Should it be seen as the basic rule or rather as an exception for rare cases? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] question about supplying/devising other title information
Linda, You are correct. RDA does not permit you to supply an explanation for the title proper. You should add a 500 note instead. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Linda Dausch Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 7:20 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] question about supplying/devising other title information I am wondering if there has been a change from the following AACR2 instruction: 1.1E6. If the title proper needs explanation, supply a brief addition as other title information, in the language of the title proper. The instruction in RDA seems to say to only do this now for cartographic or moving image resources: RDA 2.3.4 … In general, do not supply other title information. Other title information can be supplied for: cartographic resources (see 2.3.4.5) moving image resources (see 2.3.4.6). I have a program for an ice skating revue tour and was wondering about supplying the term [program] as other title information. Thanks for any feedback, Linda Linda S. Dausch Electronic Resources Serials Librarian NACO Program/Authorities Liaison Chicago Public Library Technical Services/Catalog Unit 400 S. State St., 3S-12 Chicago, IL 60605 tel. 312-747-4652 ldau...@chipublib.org www.chipublib.org inline: image001.pnginline: image002.jpginline: image003.png
Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
A translator is not a creator, so they would never be used in the authorized access point for the work, unless in addition to translating they adapted the work so much that it it becomes a new work (“translated and RETOLD by Hermione Granger”). Granger would get a 700 added entry. You can take statements of responsibility from anywhere in a book, so it doesn’t matter that Rowling’s name isn’t on the title page. She is asserted as the creator it seems, and so she is in the AAP. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: rball...@frontier.com Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 9:33 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors I know that RDA now allows fictitious characters to serve as authorized access points. The book The tales of Beedle the Bard was originally entered under the author J.K. Rowling. The cover shows Rowling's name alone. The title page, however, reads: The tales of Beedle the Bard / translated from the ancient runes by Hermoine Granger ; commentary by Albus Dumbledore ; introduction, notes and illustrations by J.K. Rowling. Should the AAP now be under Granger rather than Rowling, with additional access points for Dumbledore and Rowling? Thanks in advance. Kevin Roe Supervisor, Media Processing Fort Wayne Community Schools 1511 Catalpa St. Fort Wayne IN 46802
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
I guess I just don't have a problem with saying that a manifestation contains a single work. The manifestation is just a physical (or remote-access) object. It's a packaging device. So I don't have any trouble with the notion that the package could contain one work or expression. I think this contains vs. is issue is a red herring. The manifestation is NOT an expression. The expression of the work is contained (manifested) in the manifestation. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Jenifer K Marquardt Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 8:18 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points I forwarded this discussion to our music cataloger, Neil Hughes. With his permission, I am sharing his response below. On my own behalf, I have to say that I would miss the 240 most when it represents the original language title for the translation being cataloged. I realize that part of this is related to display, but I do like to see, right up front and in connection with the translated title, the information about the original version. With the 240 there is instantaneous recognition of the translation without having to read notes or interpret 7xx fields. Here are Neil's comments. The music cataloging community intended to add a subfield $t, etc., to the 1xx field, not just put everything in 7xx fields. That would require a revamping of MARC that I think is probably too late to undertake. (The changes to our databases would be enormous, too.) That said, at least for music it would be impossible now to follow RDA as-written and just do away with the 240 without ALSO implementing the 1xx + subfield $t concept, because of the instructions for constructing authorized access points for musical works and expressions. For example: say you have the following score representing a single work by one composer. The 100 and the 245 are as follows: 100 1_ Mussorgsky, Modest Petrovich, ǂd 1839-1881. 245 10 Pictures at an exhibition / $c Modeste Moussorgsky ; orchestrated by M. Ravel. But that 245 title isn't the AAP for that work (in either AACR2 or RDA). So, right now in RDA, we do: 100 1_ Mussorgsky, Modest Petrovich, ǂd 1839-1881. 240 10 Kartinki s vystavki; $o arranged 245 10 Pictures at an exhibition / $c Modeste Moussorgsky ; orchestrated by M. Ravel. The current LC-PCC PS says that the 245 subfield $a must EQUATE to the AAP in order not to need the 240. The only way to make this work, i.e., still have the composer in the creator role in the 1xx AND have an AAP associated with the creator (who can't really be put in a 7xx -- a lot of this is obviously caused by the MARC data structure, but that's what we're dealing with!) is to do this instead: 100 1_ Mussorgsky, Modest Petrovich, ǂd 1839-1881. $t Kartinki s vystavki; $o arranged 245 10 Pictures at an exhibition / $c Modeste Moussorgsky ; orchestrated by M. Ravel. If one were simply to substitute a 7xx, what relationship designator would one use? It isn't really correct to say Contains (expression) (all arrangements are considered to be expressions). It IS an expression; it doesn't contain one, the way a compilation or aggregate work might (e.g., a sound recording including several different pieces of music). As long as we're dealing with MARC, where 7xx analytics represent either related works or included/contained works or expressions, simply doing away with the 240 will not suffice. Or at least certainly not for music. Neil and Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Robert Maxwell [robert_maxw...@byu.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 7:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points I agree with Kevin and am tickled that he's tickled about this :-) I realize this isn't the PCC list or the MARC list, but would people be willing to push for officially switching to Adam's suggested 700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. (or alternately, without the relationship designator) 700 12 $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. instead of using the 1XX/240 technique for recording work/expression authorized access points? Are there any arguments for continuing to use 1XX/240 instead of recording all authorized access points for works in 7XX (aside from we've always done it that way)? At the moment we're recording an authorized access point for a work using 1XX/240 if there's only one work or expression involved in the resource; if there's more than one, all are recorded in 7XX. Why do we have this exception for just one work/expression? In my opinion
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
The 240 field for RDA would be used for a resource that consisted of a single work with a creator, where the title proper of the manifestation is not the preferred title of the work. In addition, the 240 would be used for an expression other than the original of that single work with a creator. RDA doesn't have the concept uniform title - instead works have preferred titles. If the combination of creator (1XX) and preferred title does not result in a unique authorized access point, then you must also add something to the preferred title to distinguish it, e.g.: 100 1_ Gale, Zona, $d 1874-1938. 240 10 Miss Lulu Bett (Novel) 245 10 Miss Lulu Bett / $c by Zona Gale. 100 1_ Gale, Zona, $d 1874-1938. 240 10 Miss Lulu Bett (Play) 245 10 Miss Lulu Bett : $b a play / $c by Zona Gale. In the examples above, the preferred title for both works is Miss Lulu Bett. Ordinarily if the preferred title is the same as the title proper in 245 $a, no 240 would be needed, but in the situation above we have two different works with the same preferred title by the same creator, so a 240 is needed as well (because the authorized access points for these two works must be different). Adam L. Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 8:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points It is a long time since I was first learning to catalog and not sure if the rules in this area have changed. I do not often add 240's to records I create locally, and don't change many in records downloaded from other sources. That being said, my understanding of 240's to give a title that historically has had different names under one uniform title, eg. Aesops fables as a title, rather than Fables of Aesop. It was also used for the foreign language title for a work that was translated, even if the foreign languate title did not appear on the book. The 246 was to show variations to a title when it appears different ways on the book, or a subtitle that because of typography or location may be considered the title by patrons looking for the book. Or cover or spine titles, again because patrons may be looking for the book under that alternate title. It did appear on the book. The 246 replaced the former 740. 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 Kevin M Randall Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 9:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven Arakawa wrote: 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? There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP. Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using 130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be replaced by 730. What I see as the point here is that we should finally divorce the title proper (a *manifestation* attribute) from the AAP (a *work/expression* attribute). When we're beyond MARC, I'm pretty sure that'll happen. (If it doesn't, we'll have done a poor job of replacing MARC...) But whether or not we should also move in that direction *with* MARC is something to think about. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] 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-L] alternative titles and variant access points My comments below Bob's. --Adam Schiff UW Libraries Seattle, WA AS: Without the relationship designator, it is not clear whether the access point represents a work or an expression. I'm not sure how much that matters. We could make the second indicator value obsolete if we consistently used the designators. I regularly see it misused - it seems many catalogers don't fully understand what it means. For example I regularly see it in OCLC on video records for a film adapted from a novel where the cataloger has used second indicator value 2 with an access point for the novel. Possibly having to assign a relationship designator would alleviate some of these coding errors. Are there any arguments for continuing to use 1XX/240 instead of recording all authorized access points for works in 7XX (aside from we've always done it that way)? AS: Well one argument that could be made is that if you record all work access points in 7XX, then you have to also when the 1XX/245 uniquely represents a work, or when you have a work without a creator whose title proper for a manifestation is in 245 with no 1XX. This means that every record would need an additional access point, and there is the concomitant authority work that would potentially be needed in order to control those authorized access points. At the moment we're recording an authorized access point for a work using 1XX/240 if there's only one work or expression involved in the resource; if there's more than one, all are recorded in 7XX. Why do we have this exception for just one work/expression? AS: You have a very good point here I think, Bob.
Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319
I think you would have to say $d active 14th century 1.9.2.5 would allow you to do [between 1310 and 1319] for a publication date, but it does not apply to dates of birth. It doesn’t appear that you could do $d [between 1310 and 1319]- The only other option I could see would be to use an approximate date, splitting the difference in dates: $d approximately 1315- Adam Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries From: Moore, Richard Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319 We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319. We can record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with it in an RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn’t have an example of “between 1310 and 1319”, but should this mean we can’t do it? It’s as comprehensible as “approximately”. If it’s considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful addition to propose? Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk ** Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 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.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
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators, LC and PCC Core
The last time I looked at this LC-PCC PS (a few days ago), it had not yet been changed. I don’t know if LC plans to follow the rest of the PCC on this. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Panchyshyn, Roman Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:01 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designators, LC and PCC Core Folks, I am looking to corroborate some information about relationship designator use, and this disgraceful government shutdown is giving me problems accessing information from LC. Regarding the use of relationship designators, right now the LC-PCC-PS for 18.5.1.3 states that their use at LC is only mandatory for use for illustrators of children’s materials only. Earlier this year, a task group called the PCC Relationship Designator Task Force issued guidelines that were accepted by PoCo, that stated: “Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are preferred access points or added access points. If the 1XX is not a creator, the addition of a relationship designator is optional.” I believe a decision was made that LC was going to change the LC-PCC-PS and adopt this PCC recommendation, and I’m just looking for confirmation that this is so. Thank you. Roman S. Panchyshyn, MLIS Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor University Libraries Kent State University tel: 330-672-1699 e-mail: rpanc...@kent.edu inline: image001.png
Re: [RDA-L] GMD - where is everyone on this?
I do hope that libraries that are using non-standard GMDs do not include them in any records that they contribute to OCLC. If including GMDs in shared records, they should be the valid ones from AACR2. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Kathleen Lamantia Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 9:06 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] GMD - where is everyone on this? We are also keeping the gmd. Patrons and staff both count on it for quick and easy identifying of which record is desired. It should be noted however, that we use non-standard gmds of our own construction – dvd, cd, book on cd, compact disc, etc – so they are really more like smds. We have recently transitioned to Sierra (we are a III library.) That may make some difference as these designations (derived from Field 30, Mat Type) now appear in a “choice” box to the left of the main display. The 245|h [gmd] was critical before we made the switch. Due to this other appearance of the gmds we may, in the future, consider eliminating them, but it will be some time yet. The terrible new 3xxs are currently suppressed. We are waiting to see if they ever serve any useful purpose for machine-searching of out catalog. They convey no comprehensible information to staff or patrons at all. Kathy Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian 330-458-2723 wlmailhtml:klaman...@starklibrary.org From: Goldfarb, Kathie [mailto:kgoldf...@com.edu] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 11:53 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] GMD - where is everyone on this? We are keeping/adding the GMD. Both the GMD and, where available, the 3xx fields display. For patrons – I think the GMD is more visible and understandable. If there is a results list, the GMD will display, though the 3xx fields will not be available until the patron gets to the full record. The 3xx fields include more detailed information, but why should the patron have to go to the full record to get that info? The reason for that index screen is to help the patron narrow down the list of items that may be helpful to them. For staff – In our ILS, after doing a search, the GMD is critical. It is the only way to identify whether you are viewing the title of a print or eBook or some A/V material. Again, to avoid wasting time opening records that are not needed. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 10:39 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] GMD - where is everyone on this? Hi, everyone; Could we get some postings on what others are doing now with the GMD? There are lots of opinions out there on this, I know. Accepting but not displaying in OPAC? Displaying? Etc. Some rationales would be helpful too. My librarian thanks you! inline: image002.png
Re: [RDA-L] How would you relate these two works?
Everett, Yes, that’s my take on the two works, although the author also describes one as a companion, or spinoff, of the other, so he seems to consider them related in some complementary way. I wondered whether I needed a designator like “companion to” or “spinoff of” or something like that. The basic question is do we want to be able to refer users from one to the other, or is the same creator enough of a link? Adam From: Julian Everett Allgood Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] How would you relate these two works? Adam, Sara and All : Hi -- I agree with Sara as well -- two separate works loosely, or not, aimed at two separate audiences. Based on the press release, it sounds as though Cain's blood is aimed at adult readers, and Project Cain at the teen/young adult audience. snip 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. snip cheers, everett On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Trina Pundurs tpund...@library.berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Sara and all, I'm not pouncing, I'm seconding. Trina Pundurs Serials Cataloger Library Collection Services University of California, Berkeley tpund...@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Layne, Sara sla...@library.ucla.edu wrote: Hi All, Maybe I will be pounced upon for the following thought, but I am offering it anyway. Given the statement that these are two different novels written about the same fictional event I am not convinced that there is any direct relationship at all *between* the two novels as two Group 1 entities. They are both about the same (fictional) event, and are both by the same author-- but those relationships are between Group 1 and Group 3 entities, and between Group 1 and Group 2 entities-- and not between two Group 1 entities. Sara Shatford Layne Recently Retired (formerly, Principal Cataloger) from UCLA Library Cataloging Metadata Center -- * Everett Allgood Principal Serials Cataloger Authorities Librarian New York University Libraries everett.allg...@nyu.edu 212 998 2488
Re: [RDA-L] Catalog publication date
I would use [2011] as the publication date. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Mitchell, Michael Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Catalog publication date I'm sorry if this has been covered recently. I seem to remember something similar. If I have a book with a copyright date of 2011 and the t.p. verso statement This catalogue is published in conjunction with the exhibition 'The Confused Art' on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York from May 10 to Dec 25, 2012. Nothing else. Is 2012 the assumed pub date or is 2011 used? Thanks, Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
Re: [RDA-L] 264 question
It would not be correct to use “SC” in your place of publication. If you are supplying a date, you wouldn’t use a postal abbreviation. Either [Charleston] or [Charleston, South Carolina]. Adam Schiff From: Patricia Mary Gierke Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:21 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Hi Mary I agree wholeheartedly – ever SO grateful for this list ! And, if I may say so, I think your final decision is SPOT ON! I believe we are encouraged to SUPPLY a place of publication or probable place whenever possible….which is what you’ve done. And you obviously KNOW that the book is self-published because it is stated somewhere. Bravo! Trish Gierke (Cataloguer) Durban University of Technology Library PO Box 1334 Durban 4000 South Africa gier...@dut.ac.za +27-31-3735458 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Saunders, Mary Sent: 03 July 2013 01:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Thanks to all who responded. I have decided to make a single 264 1 [Charleston, SC?] : $b Author’s name, $c [2013] As I feel my way along with RDA, I am truly grateful for this discussion list! Mary Saunders, Cataloger Maine State Library 64 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0064 mary.saund...@maine.gov 207-287-5620 207-287-5638 FAX This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click http://www.dut.ac.za/disclaimer;
Re: [RDA-L] 264 question
Oops, I meant if you are supplying a place, you wouldn’t use a postal abbreviation. From: Adam Schiff Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:39 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question It would not be correct to use “SC” in your place of publication. If you are supplying a date, you wouldn’t use a postal abbreviation. Either [Charleston] or [Charleston, South Carolina]. Adam Schiff From: Patricia Mary Gierke Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:21 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Hi Mary I agree wholeheartedly – ever SO grateful for this list ! And, if I may say so, I think your final decision is SPOT ON! I believe we are encouraged to SUPPLY a place of publication or probable place whenever possible….which is what you’ve done. And you obviously KNOW that the book is self-published because it is stated somewhere. Bravo! Trish Gierke (Cataloguer) Durban University of Technology Library PO Box 1334 Durban 4000 South Africa gier...@dut.ac.za +27-31-3735458 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Saunders, Mary Sent: 03 July 2013 01:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Thanks to all who responded. I have decided to make a single 264 1 [Charleston, SC?] : $b Author’s name, $c [2013] As I feel my way along with RDA, I am truly grateful for this discussion list! Mary Saunders, Cataloger Maine State Library 64 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0064 mary.saund...@maine.gov 207-287-5620 207-287-5638 FAX This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click http://www.dut.ac.za/disclaimer;
Re: [RDA-L] 264 question
Yes, but the information you have is for the place of manufacture, not the place of publication. You are guessing a place of publication based on the place of manufacture, so when supplying the place of publication it would not be a transcription. So it would either be [Charleston] or [Charleston, South Carolina] because you don’t abbreviate the names of states anymore in the place of publication element. Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries From: Saunders, Mary Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 9:38 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question The information in the publication appears as “Charleston, SC”. Aren’t we supposed to transcribe it as it appears? Mary Saunders, Cataloger Maine State Library 64 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0064 mary.saund...@maine.gov 207-287-5620 207-287-5638 FAX
Re: [RDA-L] 264 question
The abbreviations are used for the larger place in which a local place is located. This is used in authorized access points: 151 $a Seattle (Wash.) And in the location of a conference or location of a corporate body or family and place of origin of work: 111 2_ $a International Conference on RDA $d (2013 : $c Seattle, Wash.) 100 3_ $a Ramsey (Family : $c Seattle, Wash.) 110 2_ $a RDA Explanation Society (Seattle, Wash.) 110 2_ $a Republican Party (Pa.) 130 _0 $a Big Brother (Television program : U.S.) And it is also used in the individual elements that record places, such as place of birth, place of death, associated country, place of origin of work, location of headquarters, etc. etc.: 370 $a Seattle, Wash. $b Auckland, N.Z. $c U.S. 370 $g U.S. 370 $e Portland, Or. But it is not used for transcribed elements like place of publication, place of manufacture, edition statement, numbering associated with series statement, etc. If the transcribed data itself has an abbreviation or postal code, you transcribe it as it is found. But if you are supplying data not found in the resource, you would not generally use any abbreviations. So if I know a book was published in Seattle even though it doesn’t say it in the resource, you don’t use the abbreviations from the appendix: 264 _1 $a [Seattle, Washington] or 250 $a Saskatchewan edition. [not Sask. ed.] Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries From: Liptack, Vanessa Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 10:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question I'm confused as to why rda has an appendix for abbreviations including geographic locations.. Anyone know when we use these? I assumed we we once again using them for place of publication? Anyone know please clear my confusion for me. Thanks! Sent from my iPad On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Patricia Sayre-McCoy p...@uchicago.edu wrote: But in this case, there’s nothing to transcribe. The place of publication is cataloger supplied. Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:02 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Appendix B does not apply to “transcribed elements” (see B.4). The Pubication Statement is a transcribed element (see 2.8.1.4). Also B.4 instructs “If supplying all or part of a transcribed element, generally do not abbreviate words.” 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 Patricia Sayre-McCoy Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 9:52 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Per Appendix B.1 state names are included in the “approved” abbreviations. And the LC-PCC Policy statement at 1.10.2 says local institutions can establish their own guidelines for many things, including abbreviations. Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 10:43 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Oops, I meant if you are supplying a place, you wouldn’t use a postal abbreviation. From: Adam Schiff Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:39 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question It would not be correct to use “SC” in your place of publication. If you are supplying a date, you wouldn’t use a postal abbreviation. Either [Charleston] or [Charleston, South Carolina]. Adam Schiff From: Patricia Mary Gierke Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:21 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Hi Mary I agree wholeheartedly – ever SO grateful for this list ! And, if I may say so, I think your final decision is SPOT ON! I believe we are encouraged to SUPPLY a place of publication or probable place whenever possible….which is what you’ve done. And you obviously KNOW that the book is self-published because it is stated somewhere. Bravo! Trish Gierke (Cataloguer) Durban University
[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
Re: [RDA-L] Title proper choice (multiple parallel titles)
I am sure that both John Attig and Kathy Glennan are reading these emails, as are the good folks at LC. Hopefully they agree that the instruction is incomplete as currently written. Adam -Original Message- From: Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 7:34 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Title proper choice (multiple parallel titles) I agree with Adam that a rule revision might be needed here. The original draft for this instruction said: If the source of information for the title proper bears a title in more than one language or script, choose as the title proper the one in the language or script of the main written, spoken, or sung content of the resource. If this criterion is not applicable, choose the title proper on the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source of information. I think the last sentence was dropped somewhere along the line. Perhaps this could even be a fast track, to get this back? Will you bring it up with the ALA Liaison, Adam? Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -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, June 10, 2013 6:09 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [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
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 if a motion picture has subtitles in more than one language, it is a single expression involving multiple languages. For more than one language in a single expression, encoding them in one $l may not be correct. I suspect that too. If following RDA 6.11.1.4, we would encode each of them in separate fields. So we would see, for example, multiple 730 fields (each has $l). Hope somebody else would like to confirm it. Thanks for your time. Joan Wang On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Trina Pundurs tpund...@library.berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Joan, I'll wade in here, with the caveat that I'm several years removed from my last regular experience cataloging AV materials. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: Hi, all I have a question about language of expression. RDA actually has two separate sections for one language and more than one language in an expression (not a manifestation). For one language, if my understanding is correct, we record it only if it is a translation or a different language edition. I assume you are referring here to recording language of expression *as part of the authorized access point.* Of course we are always supposed to record language of expression, in MARC 008/35-37 and, if necessary, 041. For more than one language, RDA 6.11.1.4 says “If a single expression of a work involves more than one language, record each of the languages”. According to listed examples, if a motion picture has some dialogs in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian, it is a single expression. But if a motion picture has two dubbed versions (or sub-titles) such as French and Spanish, in addition to its original English language, is it a manifestation containing multiple expressions? If a compilation contains the original text and one or more translation, it definitely has multiple expressions. I think in the case of a motion picture, it is important to distinguish between the language of any audio track (dubbed or otherwise) and the language of subtitles. The audio track
Re: [RDA-L] Authorized access points for expressions
Joan is correct that Performed music would be the term added for an expression of a score but this is not how the access point for the music from the film would be constructed. It would be the name of the composer followed by the name of the musical work. The music is a separate work from the film. The 130 shown below would imply that you had a sound recording of the film – that is, all of the sound of the film, not just the music. For example if I simply played the film on my TV and recorded the sound onto a CD – you’d have the sound but no images. The access point for the music from the film would be: 100 1_ $a Steiner, Max, $d 1888-1971. $t Gone with the wind If you wanted to add to that to indicate you have a sound recording of the music you’d get: 100 1_ $a Steiner, Max, $d 1888-1971. $t Gone with the wind. $h Performed music or, in a bib record: 100 1_ $a Steiner, Max, $d 1888-1971. 240 10 $a Gone with the wind. $h Performed music --Adam Schiff Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries From: Joan Wang Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:02 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Authorized access points for expressions 130 0#$aGone with the wind (Motion picture).$hSound recording. I think that for this, should use Performed music in $h? On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: (Forgot to put subject in the earlier email I sent. Sorry about that) Hi, All I hope that somebody would like to help me understand authorized access points for expressions. We can say that authorized access points for expressions are not separate access points. They are actually expression elements such as content type, date, and language, added to authorized access points for creators or preferred titles for works. So they would be a part of 7xx, 130, 240, 243, 730, or 830 (?) fields. But they would not appear in 1xx fields. Is that right? I found the following two examples from the website of Library of Congress MARC 21 format. 130 0#$aGone with the wind (Motion picture).$hSound recording. 700 1#$aE., Sheila$q(Escovedo),$d1959- $tDawn, the beginning.$hSound recording. Under RDA, subfield h Sound recording would be changed to Spoken word, is that right? Thanks for your help in advance. Regards, Joan Wang -- 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 -- 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] Size of PDF files
Why not turn on the 34X fields for display in your catalog? This is where the data belongs in an RDA record. Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Seattle, WA 98195-2900 From: Felix, Kyley Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:13 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files I’m cataloguing a lot of PDF files in my library. I want to make it easy for users to see the size of the documents. This is what I am thinking of doing in the 300 and 347 fields. The 347 field is hidden from the user so I want the file size also showing in the 300 field. I wasn’t sure if this is the best way to do it. Also not sure whether the file size should be within the brackets with the extent? I’m unable to find examples where both the number of pages and the file size are used. 300 (10 a) 1 online resource (v, 23 pages), 840 KB : (20 b) text file, PDF. 347 (10 a) text file (20 b) PDF (30 c) 840 KB Your thoughts would be appreciated. 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] Size of PDF files
Kyley, Agreed that your display in 300 field does look clear and informative. Our ILS vendors really do need to catch up with display of data in the new MARC fields. We are able at least to suppress the $2 rda, which is really not useful to users at all other than catalogers. Adam From: Felix, Kyley Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:57 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files Hello Adam We have made a decision in this library not to show those fields as they may look like gobbledegook to the users. If the users could see the 347 field it would look like this from the OPAC: Digital file characteristics: text file PDF 3.97 MB rda Whereas if I put the information in the 300 field it would look like this on the OPAC: Physical description: 1 online resource (ix, 153 pages) : text file, PDF (3.97 MB). I think the physical description field looks clearer because of the punctuation and also users are familiar with this field. Regards, Kyley Felix Librarian Parliamentary Library Parliament House Harvest Tce Perth WA 6000 Phone: (08) 9222 7393 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 5:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files Why not turn on the 34X fields for display in your catalog? This is where the data belongs in an RDA record. Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Seattle, WA 98195-2900 From: Felix, Kyley Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:13 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files I’m cataloguing a lot of PDF files in my library. I want to make it easy for users to see the size of the documents. This is what I am thinking of doing in the 300 and 347 fields. The 347 field is hidden from the user so I want the file size also showing in the 300 field. I wasn’t sure if this is the best way to do it. Also not sure whether the file size should be within the brackets with the extent? I’m unable to find examples where both the number of pages and the file size are used. 300 (10 a) 1 online resource (v, 23 pages), 840 KB : (20 b) text file, PDF. 347 (10 a) text file (20 b) PDF (30 c) 840 KB Your thoughts would be appreciated. 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. - 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] theme song from films
I suggested that one already to JSC, but not sure what the status of it is. I think they asked Music Library Association to consider it. Adam Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries From: Robert Maxwell Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:44 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] theme song from films I've also noticed a very common missing relationship related to this one. We need Soundtrack to: or something to cover the relationship between a film and its soundtrack. 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 [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adam Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:28 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] theme song from films I was upgrading this authority record to RDA: Streisand, Barbra. $t Evergreen The song is the theme song from the 1976 film A Star is Born. There is a relationship therefore between the two works. I added to the NAR: 530 _0 $I Contained in (work): $a Star is born (Motion picture : 1976) “contained in (work)” was the only possible relationship designator that I found in RDA. I’m wondering whether we should propose something like “theme song from (work)” to have something more specific. Thoughts? Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries
Re: [RDA-L] More than one mode of issuance?
Perhaps a single unit with supplementary volumes? -Original Message- From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:45 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] More than one mode of issuance? RDA 2.13.1.3 Recording modes of issuance says: Record as many terms as are applicable to the resource being described. Now I'm trying to think of a case where more than one of the four terms (single unit, multipart monograph, serial and integrating resource) would apply at the same time. The only thing I've come up with so far is a comprehensive description of a collection as a whole (which might e.g. include monographs, multipart monographs and journals) according to 3.4.1.11. Any ideas? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] More than one mode of issuance?
LC-PCC PS for 0.0:
Supplementary Materials
LC practice: Create separate records for a main work and a supplementary
work if the supplementary work is not issued at the same time as the main
work, or if it shows important differences in titles or statements of
responsibility from those appearing in the main work.
Also, catalog separately all supplements, etc., to serials except for:
1. Indexes, and
2. Supplements, etc., that have titles that are more like descriptions than
true titles, or because the supplement, etc., is usable only in conjunction
with the main work.
Relate separately cataloged supplements, etc., to the main work following
the guidelines in Chapter 25 (Related works).
Serial Supplements to Other Serials
LC practice/PCC practice: Create a separate bibliographic record for a
serial supplement to another serial if the supplement does not update that
related serial and carries its own designation system that is distinct and
independent from that used by the related serial. Give a MARC 772 field for
the related serial. In addition, provide an authorized access point for the
related serial unless the supplement has a common title that is identical to
the title proper of the related serial. On the bibliographic record for the
related serial, give a MARC 770 field for the supplement.
Other serial supplements should be noted on the bibliographic records for
the related serials. Provide access points for the supplement whenever the
titles are distinctive.
Indexes to Serials
LC practice/PCC practice: Generally indicate the presence of an index to a
serial on the bibliographic record for the serial being indexed. If,
however, the index is published separately and is not issued by the entity
responsible for the serial being indexed, create a separate bibliographic
record (monograph or serial as appropriate) for the index. Create a separate
bibliographic record also whenever the index covers two or more different
serials. (A serial represented by one or more descriptions (see RDA 1.6.2)
is regarded as one serial.)
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:28 PM
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] More than one mode of issuance?
Sdam said regarding multiple modes:
Perhaps a single unit with supplementary volumes?
enember dash entries?
Don't we now do separate records? Has that changed with
RDA?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
The implication of the instruction that all online resources are published is that when making a record for the electronic thesis from the record for the print manuscript, you'd need to change the type code to textual material and supply a place of publication and publisher. Adam -Original Message- From: Greta de Groat Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD Why would this be an exception to the P-N practice? I don't see it addressed there as an exception. It seems to me that we have here two BIBCO instructions that are in conflict (if you're not doing PCC cataloging, then its not an issue). Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Paradis Daniel daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:15:10 AM Subject: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD With the latest update to the RDA Toolkit, instruction 2.8.1.1 now includes the sentence: Consider all online resources to be published. 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.camailto:daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.cahttp://www.banq.qc.ca/ _ De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la part de J. McRee Elrod Date: ven. 2013-05-17 23:12 À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD Greta asked: So, if we are supposed to be cataloging online monographs according to Prov= ider-neutral guidelines, wouldn't that mean that they would still be catalo= ged as unpublished? If it is electronic, it is considered published. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod 4493 Lindholm Road Victoria BC V9C 3Y1 Canada (250) 474-3361 m...@elrod.ca
Re: Author, author! Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
How about: Someone Who Did Something or Person Who Did Something of course that would eliminate non-human living entities. So, in order not to be anthropomorphic, how about: Being That Did Something ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Jay Smith wrote: Along those lines, and perhaps conforming to B. Eversberg's notion of involver, perhaps a slightly less loaded term (but admittedly not entirely neutral!) would be: perpetrator. Abbreviated in relator codes to: perp. Jay Towne Smith Senior Cataloger San Francisco Public Library [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A. Ralph Papakhian Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:22 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Author, author! Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors hi, is mac suggesting criminal defendants as the single term? now that's radical! --r A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't forget criminal defendants as 100's. We really haven't improved on an ISBD unlabled display in my opinion. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod, Special Libraries Cataloguing
Re: Author, author!
The term chosen was Party. So, the main entry would be the party of the first part and the added entries would be the parties of the second part? wink Which leads to the primary party and secondary party or ... main party and added (or additional) parties. But getting serious again for a moment, I think Hal Cain's suggestion that a relator term or code always be included to better describe the relationship of the name to the resource being described, is something that we should seriously consider. Not only could OPACs use the term/code for display purposes, but FRBRization of catalog records could probably be much improved if a system knew that a particular name in one case was a translator and in another was an editor, illustrator, actor, soprano, defendant, etc. Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * **
Re: Fictitious characters as authors
Another issue that perhaps needs addressing is animals as authors, which
also currently do not get name headings and cannot be given entries. We
are all familiar with the books by Millie the dog and Socks (Sox?) the
cat, but commercials, fictional films and television programs, and
documentaries have starred or featured named animals, and one can find
artwork created by specific named animals, etc. Movie credits usually
name important animal performers. Don't users expect to find these
entities in catalogs under name/author searches rather than as subject
headings?
Adam
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
AACR2 makes a distinction between pseudonyms (which may as literary
identities be used as prime entry AACR2 22.B2), and fictitious
characters which may not be so used. It seems to me that if one does
not know the name of the human author, the name of the fictitious
character is as much a pseudonym as any other, and is needed to bring
together the works of a single bibliographic identity, whether that
identity is presented as a mouse or not.
I hope those drafting the next portion of RDA will take this into
consideration.
Joel Hahn has given his permission to forward the following to the
list, which I think makes an important distinction:
The Archy Mehitabel books are clearly labeled as by Don Marquis.
There is no question as to who the real-world author is, as it's
clearly stated on the item itself. Therefore, the main entry is under
Marquis.
In AACR2, there is an example of an autobiography of Alice Toklas,
Gertrude Stein's secretary, which is known to have been *actually* written
by Gertrude Stein about herself. Therefore, the main entry is under
Stein.
In AACR2, there is an example of a book written by Winnie-the-Pooh,
which is known to have *actually* been written by A.A. Milne, and is not a
case of Milne intending to create a pseudonym with a separate
bibliographic identity. Therefore, the main entry is under Milne.
The Geronimo Stilton books (of which I have one in front of me, as it
just arrived today), say Text by Geronimo Stilton, Original title:
{original title in Italian}, Cover by Giuseppe Ferrario, Illustrations
by Larry Keys, Ratterto Rattonchi, and Chiara Sacchi, etc. The
copyright statement is Copyright (C) 2005 by Edizioni Piemme S.p.A.,
Via del Carmine 5, 15033 Casale Monferrato (AL), Italia; English
translation (C) 2005 by Edizioni Piemme S.p.A. The books are all told
from the first person point of view.
Unlike the case of Archy Mehibatel, where the real author is stated
on the work itself, or the Winnie-the-Pooh case, where the true author
is well known, the publisher itself has intentionally obfuscated the
name(s) of the real author(s); they label Geronimo Stilton as the
author. Since this obviously cannot be ... , and there is no known
author that can be used instead, the rules call for main entry under
title, which is why LC has cataloged them that way. (If Archy
Mehibatel was instead labeled by the publisher as by Archy, a
cockroach, and no one knew or could readily determine that it was
really by Don Marquis, then it would be the same situation as Geronimo
Stilton.)
However, because that treatment prevents collocation on the shelf of a
popular fiction series, and prevents catalog access by one of the more
obvious access points from the point of view of the target audience
of this particular series, and thus may significantly inhibit public
service, that is not considered a desirable situation by many
libraries, even if it does strictly follow the rules. Because the
rules also allow for pseudonyms such as Mark Twain, or the recently
discussed Jean Plaidy) to be used as main entries, even if the
author's real name is known (again, in order to enable useful customer
service), if the pseudonym constitutes a separate bibliographic
identity from the author's own, there is some precedent for using
names of people who do not and have never existed, it is perhaps not
all that much of a stretch to treat Stilton as a shared pseudonym of
the publisher's otherwise anonymous stable of writers, much like
Franklin W. Dixon or Carolyn Keene are, with the exception that the
shared pseudonym happens to have the same name as the main character
of the stories. We have not done that here, but I can understand why
that solution would be attractive.
(One might also make a case in favor of main entry under Edizioni Piemme
S.p.A., but since this does not fall into any of the categories that
allow for corporate main entry, that would require it's own local
exception to the rules, and if you're going to make an exception anyway,
creating the main entry under Geronimo Stilton will make MUCH more sense
Comments on Chapters 4-6, and App. D
Here are some comments on RDA draft chapters 4-6 and appendix D: 4.3.0.3. Describing the nature and scope of the content All of the geographic note examples seem to be from cartographic materials. I'd like to see a geographic coverage note that's explicitly labeled as such, and could be for some other type of resource. For example: Geographic coverage: Pierce and Thurston Counties just south of the Puget Sound. (Title of resource: Ecology and conservation of the South Puget Sound prairie landscape) Geographic coverage: East from the far eastern Indian Ocean (the Andaman Sea just west of Thailand, Christmas and Coco-Keeling Islands, far western Indonesia, and northwestern Australia) to the Pitcairn Island Group in the southeastern Pacific, then south from the tropical water of south and southwest Japan to the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef. (Title of resource: Reef fish identification : tropical Pacific) Participants surveyed were from three sites on East Coast Australia: urban Sydney, urban Brisbane, and the rural Northern Rivers area of New South Wales. The Northern Rivers area is located on the North Coast of N.S.W. and encompasses Tweed Heads in the far north to the Clarence Valley in the south. 4.4.0.3. Recording language, script, etc., of the content There are no examples pertaining to scripts. Here are some possibilities I found in our catalog that the examples group could choose from: In Serbian (roman). In Urdu (Devanagari). In Tajik (Arabic script). Hebrew and Arabic (Hebrew script). Turkish and romanized Ottoman Turkish; facsims. in Ottoman Turkish (Arabic script). Kazakh, Uighur (Cyrillic), and Chagatai (Cyrillic and Arabic script). In Serbo-Croatian (Cyrillic) and English. In Serbo-Croatian (roman), 1968-1991; in Serbo-Croatian (Cyrillic) and English, 1992- In Uzbek (Arabic script); later in Uzbek (Cyrillic script). Ottoman Turkish poetry in Latin script; introductory material in Turkish. Contributions in Serbian (roman), English, and Bulgarian, with English abstracts. Sanskrit (roman and Devanagari) and English; prefatory matter in English. In Gujarati; includes passages in Prakrit and Sanskrit (Devanagari and Gujarati script). In Hindi; includes passages in Kashmiri (Kashmiri in Devanagari). Includes passages in Sanskrit (Sanskrit in roman and Devanagari). 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, or 4.6 Some of you may be aware of the MARC Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP02 (available at http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp02.html). The paper discusses adding a coded value to the MARC 21 008 to alert visually impaired users that materials contain swear words, sex scenes, or violence or are unsuitable for family reading (a combination of the above). The paper notes that the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped at Library of Congress currently includes similar information in a 521 note (Target Audience), e.g. Contains descriptions of sex. The Service also sometimes includes sentences in the 520 note (Summary) that give the same information, e.g. Explicit descriptions of sex and strong language. RDA 4.2 is called Type and Form of Content but we don't have the content of this rule yet, but I could see how the information above might fall under this rule. RDA 4.3 is Nature and Scope of the Content, and I can see how information about strong language, sexual content, and/or violent content could fit under Nature of the content RDA 4.5 is for Intended Audience, which is the MARC field used by LC. However, there are no examples of a note like this in 4.5.0.3, nor does the text here seem to sanction a note about graphic content: Make a brief note of the intended audience for, or intellectual level of, the resource if this information is stated on the resource or is readily available from another source and is considered to be important. RDA 4.6 is Summarization of the Content and 4.6.0.3 says Provide a brief objective summary of the content of the resource unless another part of the description provides enough information and Provide a summary for all resources designed for use by persons with disabilities. LC also uses the MARC field for summaries sometimes, and the second bullet regarding a summary for people with disabilities seems to support this use. Since notes like this are deemed to be important, I'm wondering if there's one or more places in RDA that we should have examples like the ones above, and if that rule or those rules need to be rewritten to include such notes. 4.7.0.3. Listing contents There is no information or examples showing how to record incomplete contents and also what to do as information about the contents of later parts or issues becomes available (i.e. update the contents note when later parts are received). I'd like to see examples of the following types added: Folded map in pocket has title: Special management areas for long-footed potoroo in
Comments on 2.10 (Series)
Here are my comments on the draft RDA 2.10. 2.10.1.1. Definition I don't know what chief title of a series means and I find this language awkward. Why not cut out that part and go straight to the parenthetical part of the definition: The title proper of a series to which the resource belongs is the title normally used when citing the series. I'm not even sure to which the resource belongs is necessary, and if retained, I think the should be changed to a. 2.10.1.2. Sources of information As much as possible the selection of the title proper of the series and the instructions for it should match what is in 2.2.1, so that someone cataloging the series as a serial ends up with the same title proper as someone analyzing the issues or parts of the series. Looking at resources with multiple pages, the first two bullets I think achieve this objective, but the third bullet does not because the third bullet in 2.2.1.1 says to use another source in the resource itself, giving preference to formally presented sources. There is nothing about formally presented sources in the third bullet of 2.10.1.2. The same kind of analysis should be done for all the categories of resources in 2.2.1 to see if the same result would be achieved when cataloging the series as a serial vs. cataloging the individual parts in the series. 2.10.1.3. Recording the title proper of the series For the exception, I think an example would be useful, e.g.: Publication ... of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics ; 8, 11 2.10.1.4. Title of series in more than one form I think there are several problems with this rule. Firstly, this rule seems to directly contradict the instructions in 2.10.1.2 on which sources and which order of preference to follow. The first sentence says basically the same thing as the first bullet in 2.10.1.2. But the next sentence says to record the most prominent form of the series title. This doesn't mesh with 2.10.1.2 and if implemented, it would insure that different catalogers would come up with different results. It's not clear what prominent is supposed to mean in any case. 2.10.1.2 already covers which source to use for the series title proper. There are two things that I think that this rule could be used to help with: 1) what to do when there is more than one form of the series title on the source selected for transcription of the series title proper. This is a real problem that catalogers regularly encounter. Perhaps all that can be said is use judgment, but this situation ought to be addressed. 2) The last sentence says to record other forms in a note if they are considered to be important for identifying the resource. This is certainly fine, but in actuality, these other forms are typically recorded as variants in either/or a) the bibliographic record for the series cataloged as a serial b) the series authority record. Here's a place where reference to these means of recording variant series titles should be mentioned (and probably a see reference to part III on authority control should be added once part III has been written). 2.10.2.2. Sources of information Parallel titles are being treated differently here than they are in 2.3.2 and I think that this is going to cause some confusion. In 2.3.2.2 we are told to take parallel titles from any source within the resource. If we were cataloging the series as a serial, this rule would apply to the record created. But given that there is an order of preference given in 2.10.2.2 (i.e., I presume you stop recording parallel titles after whichever bullet first applies) the descriptions created for the serial and the series transcription (even if based on the exact same issue or part) could look different. Do we really want to have these disparate results? If not, the instruction here should be to take parallel titles from any source within the resource. (Of course, there's the question of what order to put them in when they are found on different sources!) 2.10.3.3. Recording other title information of series I don't have any comments on this rule per se, but I was wondering if there shouldn't also be a rule about recording parallel other title information of series? Mightn't there be times when one would want to record parallel other title information too? 2.10.5.3. Recording the ISSN of a series Hooray for the instruction on what to do with incorrect ISSNs. There was nothing in AACR2 to tell us what to do. However, might there also not be an instruction to record a note that the ISSN is incorrect (and/or to record the correct ISSN) if this is considered important? Recording an incorrect ISSN in 4XX makes me wonder if perhaps a new subfield ought to be established to put this in, so that correct and incorrect ISSNs could be distinguished. Another thing for MARBI to consider. 2.10.6.3. Recording numbering within series The example 63-2 in the first
Re: Comments on 2.4-2.5
That RDA bit about allowing an access point to replace transcription worries me, apart from 440. My old cataloguing teacher said all access points (added entries she called them) had to be justified by the description or a note. Makes sense to me. Even the authorized form of series title changes sometimes, meaning that a 440 in a bibliographic could be flipped to a form that no longer matches what appears on a given issue or part of a series. Currently the only way to ensure that this never happens would be to always use 490 1 for transcription and 8XX for access, even if they are identical (unless there is some way for systems or vendors to change a 440 to a 490 and then add an 830 when the authorized form of a series is changed). --Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * **
Re: [CRCC-RDA] Re: Adam's RDA 2.4-2.6 comments
I'd also really like to hear a principled argument for having the option as it is. Why does this apply only when there are more than 3 entities? What is so special about 3? I don't fully see how this arbitrary number can be defended intellectually. RD - Are you saying that you would like to be able to apply the option for any number, e.g., more than 1, or more than 4? What I'm saying is that 3 is a totally arbitrary number that we've chosen and I'd like to hear more intellectual justification for it. Different agencies might choose 2 or 4 or 5 as the cutoff for transcribing all the names appearing in a statement of responsibility. Others will want to (I feel this way) transcribe all names, as that is I think more in accord with the principle of enabling users to find the works of any author in a library's collection. If there is to be an option to use the mark of omission after the first named entity in a statement of responsibility, perhaps it should be left to the individual agency to decide when it will only give the first named entity, rather than when an arbitrary number of more than 3 entities is present in a statement of responsibility? --Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * **
