Re: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:22 PM, Don Charuk [dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca] wrote: This raises another question. If the author is provided on the title page and the illustrator is provide on the title page verso can they both be transcribe in the statement of the responsibility? Does not the rule 2.4.2.2 state the SOR should come from the same source as the title proper. If so interpreted, would/could you not make a note for the illustrator according to rule 2.20.3? I would say both can be transcribed in the statement of responsibility/245$c. I would justify this by 2.4.1.6 More Than One Statement of Responsibility, If statements of responsibility appear in sources other than the source from which the corresponding title, edition, or series information is taken, record them in the order that makes the most sense. As I interpret 2.4.2.2, I don't think it is limiting statements to coming only from one of those sources. In some cases (at least one I've worked on so far), I would include a note on the source of statements of responsibility not appearing on the title page (for example, if the title page had 1 SOR, and the cover and t.p. verso had 2 more SORs, I might make a note indicating that the 2nd and 3rd SORs were from the cover and title page verso (out of habit from AACR2 practice of bracketing, vs. RDA's not bracketing in the 245$c). I hope this helps, Bryan Baldus Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 bryan.bal...@quality-books.com
[RDA-L] 130s, conflicts, etc.
While cataloging new titles in the Opposing viewpoints series, I came across LCCN 2012044960. This has a 130 Genetic engineering (Merino), which makes sense due to the new way we are dealing with conflicts in RDA (LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9). On the other hand, other titles within the series, such as 2013002233 (Dictatorships), 2013002332 (Organ donation), and 2013001147 (Civil liberties) don't include a 130 to break conflicts (yet--all are currently CIP records, so perhaps the 130s will be added when the records are updated with the finished books). If such 130s are indeed needed, I had questions on how to best create them: For 2013002233, 130 $aDictatorships (Lansford), following the example of 130 Genetic engineering (Merino), seems reasonable. For 2013001147, would Civil liberties (Opposing viewpoints series (Unnumbered)) or Civil liberties (Merino : Opposing viewpoints series (Unnumbered)) be appropriate? (based on a conflict with 2012022607 (Civil liberties, in the series Global viewpoints) in the use of Civil liberties (Merino)*) For 2013002332, would Organ donation (Egendorf : 2013) be best*, or can this just be Organ donation (Egendorf)? (in light of 2008053998, which though it has the same title and editor of compilation, should probably be considered a new work since the articles within each chapter differ significantly between the c2009 book and the c2013 version). *the PS at General #4 says Do not predict a conflict.--is it predicting a conflict if one considers what an AACR2 record's would 130 would be if it were converted to RDA? Thank you for your assistance, Bryan Baldus Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 bryan.bal...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:32 AM, Deborah Fritz wrote: I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you as possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two resources: Example 1 Copyright (c) 2013 First printing, August 2012 I would do 264 _1 ...$c[2013] (Based on LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6, C. If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. Even though this is the 1st printing, unless I've missed something, under RDA we would still treat subsequent printings in the same way we did under AACR2, so this record could be used for the 10th printing in 2016, unchanged from the 1st printing in 2012 aside from an updated statement on the verso Copyright (c) 2013, Tenth printing, August 2016.) I would provide no additional information (aside from possibly 264 _4$c(c)2013). - Example 2 Copyright (c) 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 The hardcover version was published in 2007 Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the paperback that you have: Trickier, with the paperback versus hardcover-related issues, but if there were no other obvious differences between the 2 (which can be difficult to judge based only on the paperback in hand vs. the record for the hardcover), I think I'd still go with 264 _1 ...$c[2007] cataloged on the same record as the hardcover. If significant enough differences existed between the item in hand vs. the record for the hardcover, then I'd say it needed a new record, in which case I'd likely go with: 264 _1 ...$c[2008] more likely than in Example 1, 264 _4$cc2007 I usually don't add a 500 originally published note for paperback vs. hardcover-only differences in cases like this--usually only in cases where the publisher or title has changed (though sometimes I will include such a note, or at least leave it in when I am working with a record from someone who does put them in). I hope this helps, Bryan Baldus Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 bryan.bal...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] RDA CIP
On Saturday, April 13, 2013 9:50 PM, Jacqueline Byrd wrote: So, would we just ignore CIP information that would normally go in a transcription field? It's not unusual for me to find an edition and/or series statement only in the CIP. Is it best not to record information for these fields if it appears only in the CIP data, or should it be bracketed with maybe a note identifying the source? Yes, if information is only in the CIP block and not anywhere else in the book/resource, it would be ignored/treated as skeptical information not necessarily pertaining to the resource being described. If the publisher wanted the edition statement or series statement to appear on the book, they should have included it somewhere on their portion of the resource, rather than telling the CIP block creator (LC or other provider of cataloging-in-publication data blocks) that it would appear on the resource and then not mentioning it anywhere else on the resource. As for bracketing and making a note, it seems like that would be appropriate for edition and series statements where you have evidence that such statements are valid for the resource being described. For example, if subsequent volumes of a series mention your volume, but yours doesn't list a series statement, then adding a bracketed 490 or 500 might be helpful to justify an 8xx. On the other hand, if all books in the series (thinking of some children's series) mention Other books in this series followed by a list of titles, but none of them have a valid series statement outside of the CIP block, then I'd say there isn't a legitimate series, so none should be recorded/bracketed-in. I hope this helps, Bryan Baldus Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 bryan.bal...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Unsubscribe
On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:48 AM, Cariappa, Tory [tory.caria...@cengage.com] wrote: I wish to unsubscribe from this listserv. Unless they are in need of updating, instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/rdadiscuss.html https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=RDA-LA=1 I hope this helps, Bryan Baldus Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 bryan.bal...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities
On Monday, March 15, 2010 3:56 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: J. McRee Elrod wrote: That's what I use the browse function for. Doesn't everyone? You're kidding, right? I don't think all of our patrons use the browse function for this, or are satisfied by it for this, no. And even if the patron did want to use the browse function, they might find it difficult to do so in one of the more modern ILS OPACs, since it seems to be a feature frequently left out of the newer products (or at least not yet implemented if it is planned). It seems less than helpful for new versions of systems that did allow browsing of headings (phonebook-style/authorities.loc.gov-style, with room for improvements while retaining the basic functionality) to remove that option entirely from the system. Browsing doesn't necessarily need to be the most prominently featured way for searching the catalog, but it should at least be offered as an option for those users who know of its existence and value. Thank you for your time, Bryan Baldus Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 bryan.bal...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
On Thursday, November 13, 2008 10:13 PM, Diane I. Hillmann wrote: This seems so counterintuitive--libraries have been complaining for years that their vendors have made so little use of the richness of MARC records, and here's OCLC building systems that use even less. Unless something has changed recently, it seems to be the trend in several of the more recent projects. For example, VuFind, Koha, Evergreen, at least by default or in their demo configurations, use the 1xx heading rather than 245$c statement of responsibility, like Worldcat.org as described by Adam Schiff. Also lacking in many of the new projects is the ability to do alphabetical heading browses like those possible at http://authorities.loc.gov/ and http://catalog.loc.gov/. Bryan Baldus Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
On Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:45 AM, James Weinheimer included the quote: 1.1.1.6 All: Demonstrate to publishers the business advantages of supplying complete and accurate metadata. There was recently a story at Book Business Extra, Are You Providing Poor Book Data? Executive Director Michael Healy on the BISG's Product Data Certification Program. [1], with additional information at The Book Industry Study Group's website [2]. [1] http://www.bookbusinessmag.com/story/story.bsp?sid=111018var=story [2] http://www.bisg.org/documents/certification_productdata.html Bryan Baldus Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
