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/
___} |__ \__
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
I'd like to jump off this discussion ever so slightly ask what relationship designator one would use for a 110 corporate agency that is charged with issuing a quarterly report. I'm still thinking about these GAO reports in which the report is this agency's findings on a specified topic; I feel that the 110 is merited over the 710. We're not happy with |e author either. We've been using a staggered |e author, |e issuing agency [which is how we are finding the records in OCLC]. I am assuming the latter is valid in a 110 if listed after a creator designation such as author or corporate author I've been scanning the MARC code list for relators to see if I can find something other than author, am not coming up with anything that makes any more sense as a creator designation. Clearly compiler is inappropriate for this. |e corporate author makes more sense to me than author I think it would to our patrons as well. I'm debating whether we need to go back edit any 110s we have with |e issuing agency. But to what? Is this a proposal that needs to go through the fast track process I have read about? //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:32 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator I agree that author is unsatisfactory as a relationship designator for a corporate body. I don't think it meets most users' expectations of what an author is. ... When we enter this sort of exhibition catalog under a 110, it seems to me we are implying that the corporate body has creator status. For such cases, shouldn't there be a relationship designator that is explicitly labeled as creator-compatible? Even if issuing body can (semi?)-legitimately be used with a 110, it seems to me we'd be better served by a designator specific to the creator element. The sound of the term issuing body itself is not bad. Of course there is also author, which RDA does say can be used for corporate bodies. But I'm a little bothered by just author, especially in the case of a catalog which combines texts credited to actual human authors with lots of reproductions. I wonder whether corporate author would be a good relationship designator for the creator element. I guess logically it has the same problems as just plain author, but it seems better for describing the relationship embodied in a 110. When I think of corporate author I imagine a somewhat more multifaceted relationship to the work than that which a personal author has, and its use with a corporate name seems potentially less confusing than just author. This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use relationship designators for all creators. A corporate body in a 110 looks like a creator to me. If we have to draw a designator from I.2.1, I guess author is the best bet for my purposes at the moment, but it appears more people than just I aren't very happy with it. Pete smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [RDA-L] 240 uniform title
Many thanks. That validates much of what I was thinking.We may create a serial record for it if/when the next report is received, but at this point it is quicker to use this record. These are edits that we will make locally. I'm reticent to edit this record that dramatically. There is some interesting use of designators. I don't know that I can find |e witness on any list. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:08 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: 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 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[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
[RDA-L] 347 for digital files
We are noticing that GPO is now coding 347 in records describing PDF files. We are not seeing these in other RDA records for PDF files. [of course we may not be looking at the records that ARE using it] Right now we are leaving the data in the records. We haven't been adding them to the RDA records we are creating as it seemed redundant. But I have been thinking about this having just gotten back from a very basic RDA workshop, this is weighing on me. I get the fact that the field allows computers to identify formats and that will be probably a Good Thing, someday. The 347 has a large variety of subfields at its disposal. I'm trying to decide if we start to use these, how many of the subfields we should be coding. The records we are seeing are brief, with only: 347## |a text file |b PDF file |2 rda This could easily be created by a macro. It seems pretty basic though. Is this enough to be helpful? I wonder about adding |c file size but hesitate to add data that is either not used can be time consuming to determine/add. It is always a balancing act between adding more data slowing our staff down. Are others using the 347 in records for online PDF files? And if so, how many of the fields do you code? //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
[RDA-L] 775 previous edition/different title/format
I have a print copy (Not a reproduction for once, thank goodness!) of the 2012 Law of armed conflict deskbook. I just input OCLC861338166 and am realizing that there is a previous edition of this work so I am thinking through the edit to the record. The previous ed. title is slightly different I think that matters not at all. Still thinking 775, but only the online version has been cataloged. I've inserted from cited record, but because I would be pointing to a different edition (which would almost merit a 776, but) I've removed the resulting system numbers pointing to the online version. Is the 775 correct? And of course if someone notices anything else incorrect in the record, please do let me know. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA
We have been using the more complex 502, coded out as of the last batch of school papers. Our systems librarian was able to edit the display so that it generated a Thesis statement that our bibliographers would like. our 502 ‡b M. Phil. ‡c School of Advanced Air and Space Studies ‡d 2012. generates: Dissertation Note: M. Phil. -- School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, 2012. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Zukowski, Adam Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA RDA appears to consider each piece of data as separate elements (RDA rules 7.9.2, 7.9.3, 7.9.4). Also, the example in the LC-PCC PS for RDA 7.9.1.3 uses the “more complex” MARC coding with the subfields b, c, d. We’ve also been using the coding with the separate subfields in order to make the metadata more granular. Adam Zukowski Metadata Librarian Albert S. Cook Library Towson University (410)704-5318 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McRae, Rick Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:39 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA Hi, Basma—I’ve been following the “complex one” in your list of examples, using the subfields b, c and d, as you illustrated. Rick McRae Catalog / Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music (585) 274-1370 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Basma Chebani Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:36 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA Hello, 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. The simple one : 502 ##$aThesis (M.A.)--University College, London, 1969. The complex one: 502 ##$bPh.D$cUniversity of Louisville$d1997. MARC examples: 502 ##$aThesis (M.A.)--University College, London, 1969. 502 ##$aInaug.--Diss.--Heidelberg, 1972. 502 ##$aKarl Schmidt's thesis (doctoral)--Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, 1965. 502 ##$aMémoire de stage (3e cycle)--Université de Nantes, 1981. 502 ##$bPh.D$cUniversity of Louisville$d1997. 502 ##$bM.A.$cInternational Faith Theological Seminary, London$d2005. 502 ##$bM.A.$cMcGill University$d1972$gInaugural thesis. 502 ##$gKarl Schmidt's thesis$bDoctoral$cLudwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich $d1965. 502 ##$aHeidelberg, Phil. F., Diss. v. 1. Aug. 1958 (Nicht f. d. Aust.)$oU 58.4033. http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/concise/bd502.html[loc.gov] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliogr aphic/concise/bd502.htmlk=p4Ly7qpEBiYPBVenR9G2iQ%3D%3D%0Ar=0gSrvKjT%2BPIH1 qowPkG1DEFVe%2BzWbUgoo68Hts%2BU92Q%3D%0Am=5C7%2Fre0fGPOtW1uZEYfy98IxDEXeYlT 440Lp8uNRGbc%3D%0As=1fbc718fd5697a00e336265bebbf84f43b7a03a4f2dace2a043b436 f6f023dc5 Please asdvise Basma Chebani Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services Department University Libraries / Jafet American University of Beirut Beirut – Lebanon Tel: 961-1-35 ext.2614 basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
This is clearly confusing more than myself. I appreciate the forwarding of the PCC list post. And I’m following this continued conversation with interest. When a fictitious character is already established in the subject authority file the subject record is being cancelled a “new one” reestablished in the name auth file it would seem to me that this is more a revision and less a new entry. This practical reality of a number of authority fields in existing records that need to be changed, should be part of the decision-making process. Perhaps one ought not to get bogged down in the practical, but really: it doubles the authority work (one cannot change 650s to 600s in Voyager, at least I have not come across a way to do this with Cataloger’s Toolkit) Sherlock Holmes is an excellent example that illuminates this change more obviously than some might. This creates odd records such as (OCoLC)436030124 for which we have 6xxs for fictitious characters that are variously formatted. Two fictitious characters along with Sherlock who has now gained mortal status: 650 _0‡a Russell, Mary (Fictitious character) ‡v Fiction. 60010‡a Holmes, Sherlock ‡v Fiction. 650_0‡a Holmes, Mycroft (Fictitious character) ‡v Fiction. Presumably Russell and Mycroft will get 600 treatment eventually. Whether they’ll be fictitious or not, remains to be seen. Excellent series, by the way. I look forward to seeing how the British Library proposal is received next month. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 4:29 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) In a message to the PCC list dated September 4, 2013, Kate James of the LC Policy and Standards Division addressed this issue (with reference to the record for “Holmes, Sherlock”): *** … Regarding the issue of whether 9.19.1.2 f) should be applied, this is a source of ongoing debate because of the contradiction between the Core Element statement at 9.6 and the instruction in 9.19.1.1. 9.6 says, Other designation associated with the person is a core element for a Christian saint or a spirit. For other persons, other designation associated with the person is a core element when needed to distinguish a person from another person with the same name. However, 9.19.1.1 says to make the additions specified in 9.19.1.2 regardless of whether they are needed to break a conflict. The intent of the JSC in approving 6JSC/BL/3 and 6JSC/BL/4 last year was NOT to automatically add the additions specified in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g). However, because 9.19.1.1 was not changed, we are left with a contradiction. So for now, it is a valid interpretation to say that when creating a new NAR, you add a term of the type in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g) even in cases of non-conflict, and it is also a valid interpretation to say that when creating a new NAR, you only add a term of the type in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g) to break a conflict. Since this is an existing NAR, you should not change the 1XX form unless a the need to break a conflict arises. The British Library has done another JSC proposal to address this contradiction (6JSC/BL/13). This new proposal will be discussed at the JSC meeting in DC in November 2013. … Kate James Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress
[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
[RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
smime.p7m Description: S/MIME encrypted message
[RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
Michael Bernhard said: It seems to me, too, that the heading for Holmes should be Holmes, Sherlock |c (Fictitious character). I would like this clarified. In the same load I had a number of name authorities the 2 that were presented as sometime authors of books no longer had any qualifier. Is this a mistake or are we to interpret the fact that RDA does not require the qualifier to mean that it will be removed when a character is intended to stand as an author/creator? As an example, one was the new name authority record for 600 10|a Fletcher, JessicaThis record also lacked the entire |c (Fictitious character) subfield that existed on the cancelled subject record. All of the reissued Wiggin name authorities had the qualifier. Some just didn't have the delimiter. Trying to make some sense out of this. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
[RDA-L] RDA local printouts
I really appreciate Lynn Mac's replies. I will probably use a 2nd 264 and cite our library as manufacturer. It doesn't display nicely but that's another issue. So in revision I am thinking for my record: 008 Form:r dtst:s dates: 2003, 264_1 [Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania] : ǂb Army War College, ǂc 2003. 264_3 [Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama] : ǂb [Fairchild Research Information Center], ǂc [2103]. I'm still debating leaving off the 2nd 264 for OCLC adding it back locally... 77608 ǂi Reproduction of (manifestation) ǂa Bullis, R. Craig. ǂt Assessing leaders to establish and maintain positive command climate. ǂd [Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania] : Army War College, 2003. ǂh 1 PDF text file. ǂn Printout of public domain document. The 776 |h |n I would probably remove before adding to OCLC add back locally. This document was emailed by one of its authors is not available on the web. The current way in RDA is just impractical, since it means that each library has to create a new record for their own local reproduction, rather than editing an existing record. This has been my main concern -- adding records to OCLC that no one can use aside from us. That makes no sense for something like a printout. The above walks the line as best I can tell for now. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
[RDA-L] RDA local printouts
My question is in regard to local print reproductions (reports run off a library printer) of a government document (public domain) PDF received (for example) in email by a bibliographer. We get a fair number of these and I need to figure this out. In AACR2, we simply cataloged the original, limited the 533 to Printout so that if another library had a local reproduction of the same resource, they could customize that field. In RDA, given an 008 Ctry 264 coded for a specific library, this record would not be one I would think another library would feel comfortable editing for their own use. I would especially appreciate critique of the below elements: 008 Ctry: alu (our library location) Form: r Dtst: r Date: 2013,2003 (printout original publication dates) 264_3 [Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama] : ǂb [Fairchild Research Information Center], ǂc [2013]. 77608 |iReproduction of (manifestation) |a Bullis, R. Craig |t Assessing leaders to establish and maintain positive command climate |d [Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania] : Army War College, 2013 |h PDF document via email |n Printed locally (public domain) Does this look like what is being recommended? I'm still deciding about the 776 format but I would appreciate input about just about any of the above elements. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
[RDA-L] RDA Print Reproduction 264 question
I sent this question to OCLC, but I'm on a bit of a deadline and the RDA list does seem the right place after all. I’m back again looking at reproductions. This time I’m looking at the publisher from an RDA standpoint. My primary question (I’ve a few follow-on prepared but let’s start with the basic one as that might clear up much of my confusion.) is WHO do I consider the publisher when I am cataloging a print reproduction? Under RDA (since a reproduction record has not been issued in either cataloging format, this seemed a good title to use as an example) I'd been given to understand that one of the changes made was that the reproducer became the publisher. RDA 2.8.1.4 says Transcribe places of publication and publishers' names in the form in which they appear on the source of information. Does that refer to the original publisher on a piece? If we locally print out a report from the web, that is likely what we will have. And I hope that is what we do. So that is one question. We have the complicating situation of print reproductions from the Defense Technical Information Center that are issued with cover sheet containing DTIC address information emblazoned on them. Example in hand is a printout of (link is minus cover sheet): http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2doc=GetTRDoc.pdfAD=ADA5144 90 I have worked up a local example of field changes in RDA (I'd be interested in thoughts on the OCLC record 610002477 listed in the 776 from anyone with access– THAT is a problem for us. When we catalog those e-works, we do upgrade the DTIC records. In the situation of a print reproduction however, we would be creating a new record linking back to this record. [an aside question: Is there any situation in which the DTICE records are “correct” when coding themselves as publisher of a work?] Under AACR2 (when cataloging either the electronic version for our catalog or the print reproduction), we would change this 260 to reflect the Naval War College. For electronic versions, I would consider these covered by the Provider Neutral model change the 260 back to the original publishing agency. So, does that differ for print reproductions? Would we code the 264 as below (for print)?: 264_1 ‡a Ft. Belvoir, VA : ‡b Defense Technical Information Center, ‡c [2010]. 300__ ‡a 30 pages ; ‡c 28 cm 776 08 ‡i Print reproduction (manifestation) ‡a Crowell, Richard M. ‡t War in the information age : a primer for cyberspace operations in the 21st century ‡d Newport, RI : Naval War College, 2010 ‡h 30 p. ‡w (OCoLC)610002477 OR: 264_1 |a Newport, RI : |b Naval War College, |c [2010]. I would also welcome commentary on the 776 above as well if anything looks amiss. I keep seeing (manifestation) in the 776s frankly it seems a less than helpful addition. I'm using ‡i Print reproduction for the DTIC materials because they seem a bit more substantial somehow (paper/cover sheet) than our local printouts. Those are getting ‡i Printout of PDF file I'm delivering local training late next week, so clarification will be gratefully received. Thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[RDA-L] thanks RE: [RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA
Many thanks to Elizabeth O'Keefe of The Morgan Library Museum. She sent us the necessary coding that enabled my systems librarian to tweak our Ex Libris Voyager display created exactly what we want in terms of a display. This coding will surely come in handy as we continue to work with RDA elements. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC wrote: I am trying to make a local decision on the 502 for our catalog in preparation for RDA training. I remember some discussions on this topic a month and 2 ago am hoping to hear that someone has come up with a good solution since. With a helpful system-generated label, we get: Dissertation Note: Master of Military Art and Science General Studies U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 2012. Are other libraries just accepting this? Continuing with the |a free text field full punctuation? Adding punctuation to the subfields? Is there some other option I've not though of? It seems a shame not to start coding this field for our local theses especially as we start working with RDA, but I'm not liking the options I feel I have here to bring to my colleagues. I'd be interested in what other libraries that catalog a lot of dissertations are doing with their 502s. Thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
[RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA
I am trying to make a local decision on the 502 for our catalog in preparation for RDA training. I remember some discussions on this topic a month and 2 ago am hoping to hear that someone has come up with a good solution since. We would like to start coding the 502 subfields, but as best we can tell, our catalog, Ex Libris, is not able to generate punctuation that is not in the catalog record. Our public services librarians would very much like to retain as close to our current standard thesis note as possible. I understand (or assume at least there is) the assumption that systems will eventually be able to add the desired punctuation to this note. But what I do not understand about the RDA admonition to remove punctuation from the 502 in particular, is how local systems are handling this currently. Under AACR2, a sample free text 502 reads: ‡a Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. Which of course generates this display: Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. The closest we can get to this, with RDA coding is: ‡b M. of Military Art and Science ‡g General Studies ‡c U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ‡d 2012. With a helpful system-generated label, we get: Dissertation Note: Master of Military Art and Science General Studies U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 2012. Are other libraries just accepting this? Continuing with the |a free text field full punctuation? Adding punctuation to the subfields? Is there some other option I've not though of? It seems a shame not to start coding this field for our local theses especially as we start working with RDA, but I'm not liking the options I feel I have here to bring to my colleagues. I'd be interested in what other libraries that catalog a lot of dissertations are doing with their 502s. Thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA
It is indeed Voyager! I am very interested, please advise. And thank you!! //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:22 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA Patricia, Is your Ex-Libris catalog Voyager or Aleph? We have Voyager, which allows you to generate punctuation between subfields. If it is Voyager, I can point you to instructions on generating punctuation. If it is Aleph, I leave it to other Aleph users. Elizabeth O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC patricia.fog...@us.af.mil 2/22/2013 9:01 AM I am trying to make a local decision on the 502 for our catalog in preparation for RDA training. I remember some discussions on this topic a month and 2 ago am hoping to hear that someone has come up with a good solution since. We would like to start coding the 502 subfields, but as best we can tell, our catalog, Ex Libris, is not able to generate punctuation that is not in the catalog record. Our public services librarians would very much like to retain as close to our current standard thesis note as possible. I understand (or assume at least there is) the assumption that systems will eventually be able to add the desired punctuation to this note. But what I do not understand about the RDA admonition to remove punctuation from the 502 in particular, is how local systems are handling this currently. Under AACR2, a sample free text 502 reads: ‡a Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. Which of course generates this display: Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. The closest we can get to this, with RDA coding is: ‡b M. of Military Art and Science ‡g General Studies ‡c U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ‡d 2012. With a helpful system-generated label, we get: Dissertation Note: Master of Military Art and Science General Studies U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 2012. Are other libraries just accepting this? Continuing with the |a free text field full punctuation? Adding punctuation to the subfields? Is there some other option I've not though of? It seems a shame not to start coding this field for our local theses especially as we start working with RDA, but I'm not liking the options I feel I have here to bring to my colleagues. I'd be interested in what other libraries that catalog a lot of dissertations are doing with their 502s. Thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[RDA-L] thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I very much appreciate your detailed reply. I want to hasten to clarify that I wasn’t trying to point out any institution as doing anything wrong or nonstandard. Merely citing an example (of a record that looked to be done by the rules but rules that were confusing me). Getting the blow-by-blow as it were of the decisions how they evolved, helps enormously for those of us who are coming to this later, with smaller departments trying to make sense out of the variously clearly well-cataloged but different, RDA records. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[RDA-L] RDA reproduction question
I've an expedite request for a local printout copy of what I think is OCLC# 811622782. I don't understand this RDA record. I was hoping someone could direct me to RDA documentation about cataloging reprints? We are not creating original RDA records as yet. We are incorporating RDA (mainly LC records) as we come across them, but I haven't run into this particular flavor of RDA record. I do not understand how the 336/337/338/347 work to describe a printout and if incorrect, exactly how to edit to describe a printout correctly under RDA. We catalog a LOT of printouts so this is an important concept for me. I need to understand so as to be able to explain to my section. I've done some looking in the archives, but am not finding anything that answers my question in a real-world manner. Many thanks for any direction. //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 reproduction question
Many thanks for the responses on my reproduction question. The record in question has been edited makes much more sense. I realize that LC is now cataloging the work in hand, rather than the original when cataloging reproductions in their RDA records. My understanding had been (taken from a response from LC some months back along with OCLC guidance http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/specialcataloging/default.shtm#CHDCIDAF) that the change in approach was ONLY for RDA that for AACR2 cataloging we should continue to follow the LCRI. I realize the latter comment/observation is not necessarily in the scope of this list. But if someone can direct me to where LC or OCLC (whose rules we ultimately follow for the bulk of our cataloging) says otherwise for AACR2 cataloging, I'd be very interested. Many thanks //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
