Re: [RDA-L] Happy Holidays from this mountain top log house
/\ /\ //\\ /\//\\///\\\/\ //\\ ///\ /\ //\\ /\ / ^ \/^ ^/^ ^ ^ \/^ \/ ^ \ / ^\/\ / ^ / ^/ ^ ^ ^ ^\ ^/ ^^ \ /^ \ / ^\/ ^ ^ ^ / ^ ^^ \/ ^ ^ \ * / ^ ^ \/^ ^\ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ \ /|\ / ^ ^ ^ \ ^ _\___| |_^ ^ \ /||o\ / ^^ ^ ^ ^\ /__\ ^ ^ \ /|o|||\ / ^ ^^ ^ ^ /\ ^ /|o|\ /^ ^ ^ ^^ ^||___|______|__||| /||o||\ / ^ ^ ^^ ||___|______|__||| | | / ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ||oo| |ooo o Hoping you have a wonderful Holiday Season and a Happy New Year Mac Snow scenes at Ty Mynydd http://slc.bc.ca/images/winter/ To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Collective cities
Heidrun quoted RDA:
It seems RDA calls this a conventional collective title. The glossary
gives as the definition: A title used as the preferred title for a
compilation containing two or more works by one person, family, or
corporate body, or two or more parts of a work (e.g., Works, Poems,
Selections).
Confusing.
IMNSO preferred title should always be the title on the item in hand
or on screen, if there is one. It should be in 245. With the
exception of a collection lacking a collective title, something
created by the cataloguer is not a good substitute.
For a work with varying manifestation titles, of course one would use
the most used title of the work in 600$t and 700$t, e.g., Hamlet not
Tragedy of Hamlet.
If supplying a collective title for 245, it should be exact, e.g.,
Two Victorian novels not Works. Novels.; 'Love poems not Works.
Poems..
Using preferred title to mean either transcribed title or supplied
uniform title is ambiguous.
There is no reason to confuse patrons more than need be.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
Heidrun posted:
I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.
Can't comment on the theory, but in practice, our small library
clients do not wish uniform titles apart from the Bible, Shakespeare
and classical music. Most of the same title in two languages
(English/French) are simultaneous publications, so using either as a
240 for the other would be politically difficult. As stated earlier,
we use:
246 1 $iAlso published in French under title:$a[French title].
In French version record,
246 1 $iPubli{acute}e aussi en anglais sous le titre:$a[English title]
We follow the RDA option to always assign a collective title when
lacking, never string part titles in 245. Part titles (with authors
if different) are in 505 and 7XX. We should avoid assigning the same
collective title to two collections by the same author I suppose.
We don't bother with the work/expression distinction, since it does
not exist in either MARC or Bibframe, so don't see it affecting us
during my lifetime.
In the past we have not been concerned if a 245 after 1XX is not
distinctive. Of course there are often manifestations of the same work
with the same 100/245, I've never seen a discussion of the same
100/245 for different works, e.g., Joe, Blow. Selected poems, As
with those 130 (Motion picture) video uniform titles, there are
other differences in the record as a whole. This distinction is not
something easily done to legacy records, so I see no point in
beginning now.
Don't suppose this help, apart from pointing out that some
distinctions we make are irrelevant to most patrons.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] addition to authorized access point for serial title
Patricia Fogler posted:
holdings for 2009-2012, when it went to web-only
I suggest a closed record (end date in 008, 264$c's, and 362). I
would have a 264 1 for the first publisher, and 264 31 for the
second. I would have a 785 pointing to the electronic continuation.
Thus I am needing an addition to the 130 authorized access point for
my title.
Since the publisher and place both vary, I would qualify with dates of
publication. (In no instance should you use a postal code, even if
there were only one place of publication.)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 7.9 Dissertation/Thesis and FRBR
Heidrun said:
I know that the second case was treated differently under AACR2. You
wouldn't give a dissertation note (MARC 502), but a general note (MARC
500) saying something like Originally presented as the author's thesis
(doctoral)
Unril/unless we have actual work records (as in Bibframe's
Work/Instance), we are creating manifestation records, and shall
contine the thesis vs. commericially published thesis text distinction
as at present. We are hampered by the loss of 503 in doing so.
I wonder how much difference from the original thesis would cause the
commerically published version to be a different work in Bibframe?
There are sometimes major differences, and often at least a preface or
introduction added.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Who grants the degree?
Grandson Joe, who is a law student at the University of British
Columbia, writes in part:
Law and medical degrees say 'The Chancellor of the University of
British Columbia with the approval of the Senate upon the
recommendation of [specific faculty] has conferred the degree of
[specific degree] on [name]'.
So perhaps that RDA instruction should be degree granting institution
and/or faculty, as opposed to just or.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
James said:
FRBR proposes to take out data that is now in the manifestation
record and put certain parts of it into a work instance, while
other data will go into an expression instance.
Bibframe has work and instance data, no expression category. What
are different expressions in FRBR/WEMI are different (linked) works in
Bibframe. There is inconsistency in our present and proposed
standards in terms of agreement with FRBR.
So why did they want to do that? Designers of relational databases
want to make their databases as efficient as they can, and one way to
do that is by eliminating as much duplication as possible.
Reducing redundancy was Lubetski's aim, and it came back to cause us
difficulty when the order of elements changed. The element with
particular data might no longer precede the element lacking it.
e.g., a 110 became a 710, with no 245/$c and 260$b saying The
Office. SLC made a lot of money putting that missing data in.
We have also discovered the hard way that redundancy is good, and not
expensive with dropping computer storage costs. We have lost some
programs written by son Mark (such as the one which printed KWIC
indexes), with the loss of computers. We should have had back up.
The crash of a system on which we depend for linked data could happen.
Even government run websites can have their problems, particularly
with a large number of attempted users .-{)} .
How bibliographic record exchange would work when full manifestation
records no longer exist, and collections have differing manifestations
of works, I've not seen discussed.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Patricia posted:
We're not happy with |e author either. We've been using a staggered |e
author, |e issuing agency
I agree with you that author seems strange applied to a corporate
body, and will seem strange to our patrons. I assume you are unhappy
with $eissuing body alone, since it is not a creator relationship?
We are told that we may use the category when no exact term fits.
Unless/until there is an appropriate term, why not:
$ecreator,$eissuing body?
I don't understand the reluctance of include category names in the
appendix lists(s). One should not have to go to the LC/PCC PS to
discover one may use category names as relationship terms.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement
Jack Wu said:
you can for the time being at least, go back to AACR:
Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d.
AACR2 did no have n.d.. One was supposed to guess, even [19--?].
RDA provides [Place of publication not identified] etc. Our
cataloguers are instructed to never use those long uninformative
phrases, but rather to make a wild guess, e.g., in our case usually
[Canada?]. The cataloguer with item in hand or PDF on screen is
better placed to guess than the patron at the catalogue.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
James said:
The structure of the card catalog allowed people to do the FRBR user
tasks (where--for those who understood--people really and truly could
find/identify/select/obtain works/expressions/manifestation/items by
their authors/titles/subjects (or at least they could if the catalogers
had done their jobs correctly).
I am second to none in deploring the loss of some features of the card
catalogue. But in addition to cataloguers doing their job, those
cards had to be filed. At the end of the card catalogue era, this was
becoming increasingly difficult in larger academic institutions. Some
student filers were dumping cards rather that filing them. Escaping
card filing was a major improvement provided by OPACs, right up there
with keyword searching. In Canada, micro or print catalgues produced
by Utlas ending filing for many libraries prior to OPACs.
I agree with your basic position on FRBR. If I want an English
translation of a work, why would I want to know about the original and
other translations? Certainly I am not interested in knowing about
resources not in the collection, when looking for immediate access.
Few libraries for which we catalogue would have the array of related
expressions and manifestations to display.
Since in Bibframe translations are different works rather than
different expressions of one work, FRBR does not seem to be central to
Bibframe's structure, although there will be links relating these
works. Unfortunately, FRBR and WEMI organization of RDA do make RDA
difficult to comprehend. Theory trumped pragmatism.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Kevin said:
FRBR is *not* about user displays. At all.
Nor is RDA about display. But isn't user display the end result of
what we do, and what must concern us? What's the point if our efforts
don't result in intelligible displays?
It would seem to me the basic functional requirement of bibliographic
records is to support displays. A screen full of irrelevant to the
patron data concerning other resources related to the sought resource
is not helpful in most situations. For the researcher who may want
all that, it should be provided by a click on a related resources
button, not the first response of the OPAC.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
Heidrun asked:
Have you got a good example for such a school/faculty which actually
grants its own degrees ...
When next in my doctor's office, I will check his degree on the wall.
We will note and trace (500/710) the department, and faculty adviser
(500/700$epraeses), if the client wishes, but not include them in 502.
We only include the degree granting body there.
The instruction says degree granting institution *or* faculty, not
*and* faculty. So unless the faculty granted the degree, it does not
go in 502.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
In article 529c5974.5010...@hdm-stuttgart.de, you wrote:
I'm not quite certain about the meaning of faculty in the element
Dissertation or Thesis Information.
Another of those ambiguous English words. It can mean the teaching
staff of an educational institution. But in this context, it means a
subunit of a university which grants degrees. In other words, the
body which granted the degree should be in 502. $b.
As others have written, some also record the department, but in this
case the faculty would be a school in a university. The difference
between a college and university is that the university is made up of
multiple faculties/schools/colleges, e.g.m liberal arts, medicine,
music, law, agriculture, theology, etc., each of which may grant its
own degrees.
The institution in 502 $b may be traced with $edegree granting
institution, whether the university or the school (aka faculty)
within the university. Professional schools such as law, medicine,
and theology often grant degrees rather than the larger university.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Treatment of alternative formats in RDA
Audrey Williams asked:
if a print edition of an E-book is already in the database, is it better to
add a link to the E-book on the bibliographical record of the print
expression or add a new bibliographical record ...
Add a new record. The fixed fields would differ, as would the 33X media
terms. Having one record would complicate placing holds in some ILS.
The same applied to AACR2, except that the GMD would be there for one
and not the other.
If one adds an 007 for the electronic version to the print record,
some ILS would exclude the record from a print search.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Pete Wilson asked:
Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an exhibition=
n catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum=
. The museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the ar=
t involved. What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 100 fo=
r the museum?
Most exhibition catalogues of a single artist are entered under artist.
We use $eartist.
In the rare instance of an exhibition catalogue entered under the
museum (which would be 110 not 100), we use $ehost institution in the
absence of anything really appropriate. Another possibility is
$eissuing body.
We only use $eauthor for persons. At an IFLA meet, an European
cataloguer sniffed at me and said corporate bodies don't write books,
people do. There is a certain truth to that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Pete Wilson said:
This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use
relationship designators for all creators.
If you don't like any of the more exact terms, your best option would
seem to be to use $ecreator. It's not in one of the lists, but
we've been told in the absence of an appropriate term, we can use the
category.
We also lack a good term to use for the gallery or museum as a 710.
It is impossible to have a finite list provide a term for all possible
relationships.
Some of us are using $ehost institution, but I would prefer the same
term whether 110 or 710, perhaps $evenue? That hardly suggested a
creative role however, does it?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
Bernhard said:
RDA, to my knowledge, doesn't define the term, although why not?
I mean, in the light of RDA's ambitions...
In light of RDA's ambitions to be used outside the bibliographic
world, there certainly needs to be better provisions for objects.
Museums for example could use 264 0 for the artist who carved a
statue, and should be able to use 264 3 for the manufacturer of the
period telephone in its collection. Museums have far more objects
than books, and RDA is very book centric, particularly in not
recognizing that objects may be manufactured or distributed, but are
not published in the public's understanding of that word.
When/if RDA is coded in Bibframe, bf: tags need to be specific for
producer, publisher, distributor, and manufacturer.
We are not in Alice's Wonderland, in which words may mean whatever we
want them to mean. We are part of a larger culture in which words
have meanings, including publisher and published.
I suspect nobody on the JSC deals with the sorts of things which cross
Julie Moore's desk daily.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
On the OLAC list, there has been a discussion of 264 coding for
manufactured equipment and naturally occurring objects.
It seems to me that these are not published, so that for equipment 264
3 would be the proper indicator, and for naturally occurring objects
264 2, in order to have the correct label (if the ILS bases labels
on indicators), and in order to have a distinctive term tag when/if
transferred to Bibframe.
RDA as now written does not require a not identified publisher
statement (264 1) when recording producer (264 0), but is so book
centric some rewording is needed to allow the use of manufacturer (264
3r, and distributor (264 2), when there is no publisher to be
identified. Perhaps something along the lines of when there is no
publisher, such as for manufactured and naturally occurring objects,
manufacturer or distributor should be recorded?
It is contrary to patron understanding of terminology to call the
manufacturer of an iPad, or the distributor of a rock, a publisher.
Neither 264 1 nor 264 0 is suitable for either of these.
Mark, perhaps you could include this in your RDA revision
proposal(s)?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
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] RDA imprint revision
Adam said:
I think technically it is NOT possible to use 264 _2 and 264 _3 with 264 _0
in an RDA-coded record
Why would one wish to do that? Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a
rock. All we need is 264 2 for the seller of the rock. Like
manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring objects are not
published, and should have the appropriate 264 indicator for
manufacturer and distributor.
distribution and manufacture elements in RDA are defined as
pertaining only to published resources.
That is simply wrong and should be ignored until changed. iPads are
manufactured and rocks distributed, even though not published. One of
the first items I ever catalogued was a set of sample minerals. The
were collected and distributed, not published.
This may be an area in RDA that needs revision
That is an understatement. Until revised, we should be truthful in
our descriptions, and not pretend that equipment manufacturers and
naturally occurring object distributors are publishers.
but the definitions given in RDA are quite clear.
No they are not. Much of RDA is very unclear, and not in accord with
reality. How many JSC members are actual cataloguers of nonbook
materials? They should add Julie Moore to their number!
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Facsimile reprint
Dana Van Meter posted:
Thanks Mac. Do we really need a 501 note and 700$a$t for the Introduzione,
and the bibliography?
We would only consider it if written by a very well known person, and it is
lengthy. Rather than $t, you could use $ewriter of added text.
I kind of found the answer to my question of whether I need a 500 note if
I use the 775 |i in LC's Reconsidering the Cataloging Treatment of
Reproductions(April 29, 2010)--which I interpret to say that I don't need
a 500 if I'm using a 775
True. Of course ILS vary in the display and indexing of 77X. That's why
we like a 530 even if there is a 776, although we remove it for loading on
OCLC, since the PN standard lacks it.
LC states that it will generally use the relationship
designators 'reproduction of (manifestation)' and 'reproduced as', rather
than one of the more specific terms
Every client we have has rejected 7XX$i, I assume because $i comes first
while $e comes after. We will remove #e for those who don't want them,
but not assign $i.
There was an earlier discussion on RDA-L pertaining to whether the |w is
mandatory in the 775 ...
We more often use LCCN in 77X$w.
The training module states: If a bibliographic record OR other
detailed information about the original is not available, give instead a
bibliographic history note with as much information as you have in a MARC
500 field.
Field 503 should NOT have been made obsolete. We still use it.
Are others also interpreting these 2 statement to mean that the |w isn't
mandatory in the 775 as long as you have other detailed information about
the original?
There are other candidates for 77X$w: LCCN, LAC or Amicus 001, as well
as OCN.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a compilation of works
Peter Wilson asked:
But I am still left wondering whether a plain 700 author added entry
is allowable under RDA ...
Why not do a 700$a$t?
Apart from illustrators of children's material, relationship
designators are not core. You could do 700$a$econtributor I suppose,
but why?
Unless the contributor is from one's own institution, why do one out
of 20?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
Melissa Powell said:
There is no 'choice', the rules have changed.
While there is no choice that we must cope with RDA records derived
from national cataloguing agencies and bibliographic utilities,
several choices do remain:
1) Will RDA be implemented for local original cataloguing? Many
libraries will continue to use AACR2 for Aunt Madge's donated
scrapbook I suspect.
2) If RDA is implemented, which options will be followed? We have,
for example, clients which will accept RDA records, but minus entry $e
relator terms (apart from illustrators of children's material), and
added entry $i.
3) If creating RDA records, will they be done as monkey see, monkey
do, and/or by utilizing the MRIs, cheat sheets, local procedures, and
other online helps reported on this e-list and Autocat? Will the
print version be purchased?
In addition to cost, there is the matter of the time it takes to find
a rule in RDA, and then to figure out what it is saying. We can not
afford the time required. and give the turn-a-round our clients
demand. E=publishers and agregators demand that we provide the
records by the time the titles are to be released.
As as has pointed out by others, AACR2 was a one time purchase. The
RDA Toolkit is an ongoing overhead.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Retrospective conversion to RDA
Matt Elrod m...@elrod.ca wrote:
I've already written a script to convert AACR2 to RDA, with some
limitations. For example, it makes a wild guess about 700 $e.
With some refinements and enhancements, I think I could offer
a more robust and generic AACR2-RDA converter, either online
or on demand. If online, it could be integrated with Paypal
to charge by the record.
The script Matt wrote was to convert AACR2 print records to RDA
electronic ones, which we are now doing. Matt may be contacted at
m...@elrod.ca.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Optional additions in 2.3.2.6
Heidrun said:
Summing up this rambling mail, I think it odd that, in a part/whole
relationship, some of the titles on the same source of information are
treated as titles of manifestation and some are treated as titles of works.
In our English/French bilingual situation, we record the titles in the
language of of the manifestation in contents (505) and added entries
(700$a$t or 740). For individual titles in a compilation, normally
there is no reference to the other language.
I suspect the UK MARC 248 for constituent title would have been a neat
solution, had it been adopted by MARC21. It is just too complicated to
deal with constituent part translation original language in MARC21 as
now constituted.
For a manifestation of a single work in both languages, our clients
like:
246 1 $iAlso published in French under title:$a[French title]
or
246 1 $iPubli{acute}e aussi en anglais sous le titre:$a[English title]
(There is no way of knowing which is the translation of the other in
the case of simultaneous publication.)
In the case of a translation, one may use 775.
How different will this be in Bibframe, where the translation becomes
a related work rather than a different expression of the same work?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Facsimile reprint
Michael Borries posted:
501 is for use for separate bibliographical works bound together,
either by the publisher or the library.
We prefer to use exact notes rather than lump everything in 500. This
both frees us from determining note order and speeds finding a
specific note. We use 501 for DVD special features, for example.
In the recent book with inclusions, a 505 would need to include the
book as well as the inclusions. If only moving the 300$e to a note,
it should be 501 unless the book itself is added.
MARC was made for us, not us for MARC.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
James said:
Of course, when the time comes for retrospective conversion of the
millions of records in that awful, terrible legacy data ...
Surely you jest. Most of our library clients prefer the awful
terrible 'legacy data' to the strange (to them) RDA records. Our
AACR2 compatible export is very popular.
Most of our e-publisher and aggregator clients feel they must be with
it, and go with the new standard.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
Julie Moore posted:
This pricing is going to squeeze libraries out of the market. Catalogers
who cannot cough up this kind of money will either have to buy the paper
and live with a far less superior version of RDA than the Toolkit ... or
just catalog blindly without access to the rules.
This is *VERY* disappointing.
Bernhard has made the same very important point.
SLC is happy with the MRIs and cheat sheets; much less time consuming than
trying to puzzle out what RDA is saying, Toolkit or print.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a compilation of works
Pete Wilson posted:
This ... is conference proceedings, and has two statements of
responsibility, one for a compiler (i.e. editor of compilation)
and one for 20 authors, which has been= shortened in the 245 $c to
one name and 19 others.
We don't catalogue on OCLC. You would have to cut. paste, and post
for me to see it.
Without seeing it, the main entry should be 111 for the conference,
not the editor or author of first paper. Only the editor statement
should be in 245/$c, with a 700.
The authors of the papers are not joint authors. If you are going to
include them, they should be in 505 following the titles of the
papers, not in 245/$c. I see no real value in an added entry for just
one of them.
We are in the habit of doing full contents for conferences. In the
early days many speakers were members of firms for which we
catalogued. We are now paid by Lexus Nexus to key all paper titles
and authors for the online index they host of Canadian law symposia
proceedings, replacing a KWIC print index we used to publish.
(Could anyone use big grey 3 ring binders, left from that project?
Free for shipping. They do say Canadian Law Symposia Index on
them.)
Considering authors of portions of a compilation as joint authors will
be, I suspect, a frequent RDA mistake, due to RDA's fuzzy language.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Facsimile reprint
Dana Van Meter posted:
I have a facsimile reprint, which is not at first glance a
facsimile reprint, but it is. My book has a new title page, followed by
28 unnumbered pages which contain an added Introduction ...
I would certainly adjust the collation to include the added pages,
record the introduction (title and author) in 501, and trace in 700$a$t.
Our IT person would insert the 775, in addition to the cataloguer's
note identifying this as a reproduction.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Home country rule
Seth Huber said:
Does anyone have any best practices with the home country rule from AACR2
While RDA allows you to give the first place only, you may also give
all places. Giving all places would then include the home country.
That seems the best practice to me.
I never liked the home country rule, since it made descriptions
produced in different countries differ from each other, complicating
international exchange of records. (Of course RDA's long English
language phrases create an even greater variation.)
In many ways, we find RDA to be one step forward, but several back.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Multiple places of publication
Karen Nelson asked:
What does RDA require when the place of publication on the title page
is like this: Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England. Both in
$a, just as they are, including and, or two $a's, one for each city?
We would do two $a's. And we would add square bracketed jurisdiction
if not on the item. Consistency and full information are values.
Imprint 264 is not strictly transcribed in the way the title 245 is.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Abridgements
Mary Charles Lasater posted:
So what are those of us attempting to deal with changes from AACR2
(or earlier) to RDA to do with a title such as Calvin, Jean...
Institutio Christianae religionis.|lEnglish.|kAbridgments
We are sticking with our long term practice of entering under original
author of the literary form is the same, but the new author if it
changes, e.g., Lamb's Tale from Shakespeare.
Since in this case both the original and abridgment are prose, we
would enter under original author.
I suspect most patrons would want the abridgment because of who wrote
the original, not who did the abridgment. The litmus should be
patron convenience. Doing so also justifies Cuttering to stand with
original, which helpful collection organization requires.
RDA requires a large dose of common sense to produce helpful records,
as opposed to analysis of the RDA text. Sometimes we sound like
Medieval theologians.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Varying form of publisher's name on t.p./t.p. verso
Dana Van Meter asked:
If I need to take the place of publication from the t.p. verso,
.should I then also take the publisher's name from the t.p. verso
We would take as much information from the title page recto as
possible, including the form of the publisher's name, and only go
outside that for information not there, as is often the case for
publisher's location and publication date, and rarely the statement of
responsibility. Unlike AACR2, we don't need to bracket data taken
from the title page verso or elsewhere in the item such as a colophon.
Missing RDA phrases and poorly worded RDA phrases should not cause us
to forget basic bibliographic principles, such as title page rector as
preferred source for data which is to be found there.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Varying form of publisher's name on t.p./t.p. verso
Dana Van Meter asked:
If I need to take the place of publication from the t.p. verso,
.should I then also take the publisher's name from the t.p. verso
P.S. If you wanted to use that First published phrase from the
title page verso, it could be a quoted note. Too bad we lost the
useful 503,
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] reprint relationships
Trina Pundurs said:
regular-print and large print can most certainly be the same expression.
I was more in agreement with your first post. While a large print
version may have the same words as the regular print version, this
shop does not consider the two to have the same content.
Since Bibframe does not have expressions as such, this may not make
much of a practical difference, but RDA's failure to address large
print as content does make a practical difference for patron access to
the desired format.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Abridgements
Michael Borries posted:
I am not at all clear about how to treat abridgements under RDA.
Our head cataloguer has suggested that if RDA is not clear about something,
do what you would have done in AACR2, just spell it out.
We can't afford to spend a lot of time attempting to figure out RDA.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] published or not published?
Kevin Randall posted:
The assignment of 264 2nd indicators makes absolutely perfect sense
when you see that they parallel the RDA instructions which led to
their creation.
You are correct. It is the order of directions in RDA which makes no
sense.
But regardless, all MARC tags are arbitrary anyway
Not for Ms Avram, but certainly subsequently to her. For example,
the total lack of logic to the order of 5XX, which divides related
information, e.g., 506 and 540, 508 and 511. Notes of little interest
to patrons such a source of title in within the item is 500, but
requirements for use, very significant for users, is 538. Then there
is 33X; the original 33X proposal had them in general to specific
order, which was more logical. Both 337 and 338 have more in common
with legacy GMDs than 336.
If would make programming for display much easier if logical order
were followed is assigning field tags.
How will this work in Bibframe? There is no order inherent to verbal
labels apart from alphabetical, which obviously can't be used.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 347 for digital files
Patricia Fogler said:
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.
We are among those not coding 34X fields, in part for the reasons you
give (redundancy and time consumption), but more for the sake of
consistency with legacy records, and the capability of current ILS.
Field 347 is particularly redundant if one is coding 256 and/or 516, as
well as 300$b.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] published or not published?
I have never had a good grasp on what constitutes something being published= or not published. As well you might be, considering the ambiguity of language. 264 0 Producer does not refer to the producer of a motion picture for example, but rather to the producer of an unpublished resource. The confusion is increased by the fact that we pretend that a print thesis is unpublished, a fiction since photocopiers replaced carbon paper, particularly since most theses these days are printed out from the published electronic form. Where SLC differs from some is that from our clients' point of view, once content is published, it can not revert to being unpublished. For one off reproductions of published material (printouts or photocopies) what is relevant to patrons is the publisher of the material in 264 1. The printer or photocopier can be recorded in 264 3. Similarly for aggregators of e-books; the aggregator can be recorded in 264 2 as distributor. They did not publish the e-books. The PN (Provider Neutral) standard fortunately recognized this, although the standard omits useful fields (010$z, 506, 530, 538), and uses a too general unit name (online resource as opposed to PDF, website, streaming video, etc.). So basically, I would advise recording producer of originally unpublished material (such as a manuscript letter) in 264 0; actual publisher in 264 1; after the fact printer or distributor in 264 3 or 264 2. (It's odd that 2 and 3 indicators were assigned in that order, since manufacture must precede distribution.) As a bow to the fiction concerning print theses, the degree granting institution can be recorded in 260 0. I'm especially confused about the differences between = production, distribution, and manufacture. Production would be the creation of a unique resource, such as a manuscript. Distribution would be providing the resource, such as an e-resource agregator (Serials Solutions, Canadian Electronic Library, ebrary). Some publishers distribute other publisher's material, e.g., Business Expert Press distributes Marketing Classics Press publications. I'm attempting to catalog a resource which is basically a photocopied booklet of a collection of student writings. Happy to look at your record if you send it to me; we don't catalogue on OCLC. If the photocopies were distributed, I would record the compiler/photocopier in 264 1 (a school?). If no imprint information, I would give the school in brackets. If it is a one off copy of a previously published item, then 264 1 for the original publisher, and 264 3 for the photocopier. On another item I'm working on, which is also a photocopied book of several pages ... If a one off copy of a published item, original publisher in 264 1 (that's what the patron needs to know for authority and currency); the photocopier in 264 3 (in addition to, not instead of, 264 1). When following AACR2 or RDA on reproductions (as opposed to the ill advised LCRI), we make a distinction between a publisher (such as ProQuest, UMI), vs. a one off copier (e.g. an ILL department). I again can't tell if this item would be considered published, or merely produced or manufactured or whatever. It has what looks like a publisher's statement presented, along with the title information, on the cardstock cover, which says: Mormon History Association / Killington, Vermont / May 28, 2005. According to the acknowledgments page in the book, this refers to a meeting of the association. We would consider the Association to be a creator (110. 111, 710, 711) but not producer (264 0) since it is not a manuscript. We would record the Association both as a main or added entry creator, and 264 1 publisher. I'm not sure = how or if to record an access point and associated relator term to the meeting. If a named meeting, it would be 111 (if these are the proceedings) or 711; with either $ecreator or $eissuing body. Also, I'm not sure what to do with the very specific date Record the year in 264 1 $c, and the full date in 518. Does the record need a statement of responsibil= ity in 245 $c? Without seeing the record, I would say yes. The Lubetski practice of not repeating the name is long past. Those records have given us problems, particularly when the 100 or 110 became a 700 or 710, and the name was not given in 245$c or 260$b, Since the book mainly consists of Snow's poetry with short, introductory material before each one, should she be in 245 $c, and used as a main/alternate access point (if so, what relator term do I use? We would have her as 245 /$c and 100, with relator term $eauthor; poet is not in the list. (Some RDA relator terms are more exact than other, e.g., we have sculptor as well as artist, but not poet as well as author.) If one person wrote the introductory material that person would be 700 $ewriter of added text. )The use of the subject subdivision -Poetry has me confused as well. You would use $vPoety after a
Re: [RDA-L] Government, jurisdiction, territorial authority?
Heidrun said:
That confirms my suspicion that in many (though not all) cases, the best
solution for the German version of RDA would be to translate both
government and jurisdiction with the same German term
Gebietskoerperschaft.
This ignores the fact that government refers to those in charge, and
jurisdiction to the area (sometime subject) of which they are in
charge.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Government, jurisdiction, territorial authority?
Heidrun said:
But not every time - that is just the problem. For example, in
11.2.2.5.4 RDA says: The conventional name of a government is the
name of the area over which the government exercises jurisdiction
...
mm. The difference between 110/610/710 vs. 651. I'm will miss
MARCese for expressing these distinctions if we ever leave MARC, e.g.,
130 vs. 240 which require a phrase to distinguish.
I don't think you should be overly influenced by RDA's fuzzy language
and logic. Jurisdiction could be thought of as what government does;
both the government and the jurisdiction governed are France in the
case you mention. Government names sometimes differ from the commonly
used area name, e.g, Republic of ..., Peoples We certainly
don't keep our 651s up-to-date with all governmental name changes.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relators in one alphabet
I probably missed the explanation in another post, but I was just referring back to this very helpful list you shared over a month ago, and don't know why some of the terms are in square brackets. Square bracketed ones are terms we needed but not in RDA. Below is a more up-to-date list. Some terms we had bracketed do not need to be, since Mark tells we we may use the RDA categories if a more exact term does not fit. RDA Relationship terms to be coded $e after entries; precede and separate (if more than one) by commas: abridger actor addressee animator annotator appellant appellee architect [arranger] arranger of music [consider arranger] art director artist author autographer binder book designer [consider designer] braile embosser broadcaster cartographer caster [cataloguer] [chairperson] cinematographer choreographer collection registrar [consider cataloguer] collector commentator compiler composer conductor [contributor] costume designer court governed court reporter creator currator current owner [consider owner] custodian dancer dedicatee dedicator defendant degree granting institution depositor designer director director of photography [Use cinematographyer] distributor donor draftsman editor of compilation [consider compiler] editor of moving image work [consider editor] enacting jurisdiction editor engraver etcher film director [consider director] film distributor [consider distributor] filmmaker former owner [consider owner] honouree host host institution illumninator illustrator inscriber instrumentalist interviewee interviewer inventor issuing body judge jurisdiction governed landscape architect librettist lithographer lyricist manufacturer moderator musical director narrator on-screen presenter [consider presenter] owner panelist performer photographer plaintiff praeses [consider moderator, cf. thesis adviser] presenter printer printmaker producer] production company production designer [consider designer] programmer publisher puppeteer radio director [consider director] radio producer [consider producer] [reader see narrator] recording engineer respondent [researcher] restorationist [reviewer] screenwriter sculptor seller [setting] singer speaker sponsor sponsoring body stage director [consider director] storyteller [supervisor] surveyor teacher television directory [consider director] television producer [consider producer] [thesis adviser] transcriber translator [writer] writer of added commentary [consider writer] writer of added lyrics [consider lyricist] writer of added text [consider writer]
Re: [RDA-L] Government, jurisdiction, territorial authority?
Verena Schaffner asked:
How would you define the differences between jurisdiction, government a=
nd territorial authority?
They are not mutually exclusive. We normally use jurisdiction to
mean the larger government in which a smaller one is found, e.g.,
British Columbia in Vancouver [British Columbia]. A government may
be at any level, e.g., Vancouver, British Columbia, or Canada. We use
territorial authority to refer the government of a area not yet a
province or state.
Jurisdiction is also used to refer the the area (or subject) in
which an official body has power, e.g., a police force, a regulatory
authority, or s court.
The same government may be more and one of these, just as Canada may
be a 610 or 651 depending on usage.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Continuing helpful practices
Heidrun said concerning qualifying corporate body cross references:
But I was amazed that this doesn't seem to be absolutely necessary under
RDA.
That is but one of *many* long established helpful to patrons
practices which are not absolutely necessary under RDA, but I hope
we will continue anyway.
Among these are added entry for authors in addition to main entry
where relevant; justification of added entries in the description;
standardized sentence capitalization; providing jurisdiction after
place name if not on item; ISBD punctuation; guessing rather than not
identified for imprint elements; etc.
Personally, I see no reason for changing our practice in this
respect, but other people may have different ideas
We agree that helpful practices should continue.
We have had only one client say they want the LC minimum, including
no relationship terms apart from illustrator for children's
material. We do full records, and remove unwanted fields and
subfields on export. e.g., 010$z, 506, 530, 538 from e-book records
going to OCLC; 300 for e-serial records going to Serial Solutions. We
don't want truncated records in our system.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Conference names without meeting, symposium a.s.o.
Heidrun said:
According to common usage among German librarians, the name of the
Hamburg conference is 101st German Librarians' Conference, and not
Libraries - portals to the world of knowledge.
We would make that theme:
246 1 $iConference theme:$aLibraries - portals to the world of knowledge,
rather than a cross reference to the conference name. This allows
immediate access by that phrase.
That phrase relates to one conference only, and would not be
appropriate if an authority were being done for the conference in
conjunction with a serial record for the proceedings. In that case,
the phrase would be:
246 12 $aLibraries - portals to the world of knowledge$f2012
This also happens with yearbooks - a particular year having a
distinctive title. Remember 246 was originally a serial field only.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points
Heidrun said:
The thing which triggered of my initial question were references from
shorter forms of the name.
If the place is part of the corporate body name, obviously a
geographical qualifier is not needed for the name used as an entry. If
removing that geographic name for a cross reference, should it not
then be a qualifier at the end of the shorter form of the name? It
need not be keyed in searching, but would clearly indicate the body to
which the cross reference points.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Conference names without meeting, symposium a.s.o.
Heidrun said:
But I did, and with this background information I'd now argue that
Johannes Secundus und die roemische Liebeslyrik was not the name of
the conference, but rather its topic.
I don't think access is hampered whichever is chosen, so long as there
are authority cross refeences, and 246s. I would tend to go with what
is on the item, with a name found by web searching as cross reference
and/or 246.
If the absence of a term in the name indicating that it is a meeting,
the addition of number (if any), date, and place, to the name makes
that clear it seems to me.
If the name of the conference is also the title proper, I think we
lost clarity by no longer being able to add [proceedings].
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynnne LaBare said:
I have the MARC Code List for Relators and Mac's Special Libraries
Cataloging list from an email dated 8/29/2103.
You might wish to print it out again from the MRIs our website. Based
on Mark's helpful post, I added more terms Tuesday:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
You need to sign up for a free account.
For any who have difficulty, I'll post the list again.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate body main entry
Bernhard said:
But Cutter is not of any genuine concern to cataloging rules.
No, but the effect on Cuttering should be, as should be display.
The A of RDA is not addressed at all by RDA,
The effect on access should be the prime concern in writing,
interpreting, and applying rules.
For the other functions you mention, would it not be sufficient and
more plausible to have a much simpler decision process?
I suspect nothing would prove simpler than our centuries long practice
of author plus title where there is an author, and title (qualified if
needed) if not author.
The inconsistency over time of entry of items with multiple authors,
and produced by corporate bodies, does create unfortunate variety, as
does our refusal to accept compilers and main entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
I asked Michael Gorman what I should add to the MRIs concerning using
the main entry of an earlier edition as the main entry of a later
edition, with a different order of authors in the statement of
responsibility.
He responded in part:
Not sure how to respond. It's a small point but it represents a
snapping of the fundamental Lubetzkyan principle in choosing access
points--i.e., the determination of who is chiefly responsible for the
intellectual or artistic content of the work being catalogued, and
assigning other access points flowing from that basic decision. That
snapped, the rule just says choose any access points associated with
what you are cataloguing. No theoretical underpinning, no
*consistency of application. In other words, that rule can't be fixed
and I would suggest the MRI's say 'ignore this rule; choose the name
of the person who is chiefly responsible for the intellectual or
artistic content of the edition of the work being catalogued as the
basis for the access point' (in this case, the author/first author of
the edition of the work being catalogued).
I'm open to other suggestions. But choosing the main entry on the
basis of the main entry of an earlier edition strikes me as
ridiculous. For every later edition we catalogue, are we supposed to
research the main entry of earlier editions? What if we have the 5th
ed., and the main entry has changed before? How far back are we
supposed to go? The first edition? The preceding edition? Cheez.
As John described it, we are not to use the earlier main entry if that
name is not in the statement of responsibility of the later edition.
What if it is in the title proper as mentioned earlier, e.g., Smith's
Torts, fifth edition by Tom Jones. Earlier entry was Smith, later
Jones, now?
I seems to me our long standing tradition is to catalogue the item in
hand. For reproductions, RDA (like AACR2 but contra the LCRI) has
moved in that direction. But in relation to later editions, it has
abandoned that very basic practice.
Like Michael, I am inclined to ignore that rule, as LAC and SLC did
the reproduction LCRI.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne LaBare asked
:
245 10 |a Natural History Museum book of animal records : ?b thousands
of amazing facts and unbelievable feats / |c Mark Carwardine.
710 2 |a Natural History Museum (London, England), |e issuing body (?)
Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator
Kevin said:
.. there don't seem to be any specific designators that fit the situation.
No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship possibilities.
In some situations there is no useful term, or we shoehorn an entity
into an ill fitting one, e.g., host institution for an art gallery
mounting an exhibition.
I begin to understand why so many clients want them removed. Let's
continue justifying added entries in description.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point)
without any relationship designator even though the Natural History
Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another
poster has advised that if no exact term works, use the larger
category. even if not the the lists. (The MRIs add those categories
to its list.) In this case you might consider $ecreator. The body
has a more important relationship to the item than just holding the
copyright.
You are right, I think, that the terms from the $4 code list should
not be used in $e. You could use the $4 code, but as I said, the
relationship is larger and more important than just copyright holder,
so I would not.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate body main entry
Bernhard said:
.. or if the name would need to be added to the title proper in order
to individualize the title [in the case of a generic title] ...
When rules for serials changed, so did they for series. Field 410 is
not used, and 810 is much less used. What used to be 410 2
$aSociaty.$tReport is now 830 0 $aReport (Society).
OTOH, this sort of issue may have long since become a non-issue when
it comes to searching. The main entry idea is obsolete ...
The main entry concept is not obsolete (despite the name change) so
long as we are Cuttering, creating subject and added entries for
works, single entry bibliographies, and assisting scholars with
citations and footnotes. Granted a searcher may not care whether the
searched corporate body is 110 or 710; all it affects is Cutter.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Hedrun said:
RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of
corporate bodies which are responsible for originating, issuing, or
causing to be issued. The definition in RAK is: a corporate body which
has either prepared *or* initiated and edited an anonymous work. So,
there is a precondition here (unknown to the Anglo-American world) that
there is no personal author.
In our practice, it is not enough to have produced the work, the work
must be official. An art galley produces as exhibition catalogue,
but the main entry is the artist, due to the reproductions of the
artist's works being the prominent feature (336 still image precedes
336 text). Both the gallery and writer of added text are added
entries. This distinction confuses our clients and cataloguers most
when applied to law reform commission reports. If a report is
informational, it has main entry under personal author or title; if it
contains the official recommendations of the commission for change to
law, the main entry is the commission. This looks very inconsistent
to patrons, and separates (by Cutter) the initial report from the
final one.
Such a corporate body is called the Urheber (a possible translation
might be originator).
Atlases would be the nearest we have come to that I suspect.
That's what made me think that the corporate body might be seen as
the creator under RDA.
In the absence of official nature, I would see it as *a* creator
(710) but not *the* creator (110). Again, I think we have more
clarity with the traditional terms.
Our head cataloguer is telling our cataloguers that when RDA is silent
or fuzzy, just do what you would have done in AACR2, but spell it out
:-{)}. Perhaps you should do that in reltion to RAK?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for art technique books
Jenny said:
We've been discussing appropriate relationship designators for art techni=
que books when the creator is the author of the instructions and the arti=
st who created the demonstration pieces...
If the person both wrote the text and produced the art reproduced, and
both still image and text are used in 336, seems to me it should be
$eauthor,$eillustrator. Were the art reproductions the major content,
then $eartist,$eauthor.
For exhibition catalogues, we use just $eartist, since the text is
usually by a curator. Some clients only want the LC minimum relator,
$eillustrator for children's material. In that case we remove the
other relators on export. We like to have complete records in our
file; for one aggregator we even remove 300 for online resources, but
we don't want that in our files.
LEADER 00797cam 22002417i 4500
000 00797cam 22002417a 4500@
001 slc30620010082732
003 CaBNVSL
005 20131003093904.0
008 131003s2013nyu c0 eng u
020 |a9780982431573
040 |aCaBNVSL|beng|erda|cCaBNVSL|dCaBNVSL
100 1 |aMolloy, Tom,$eartist. (May remove $e term on export]
245 10 |aTom Molloy :|bissue /|cTom Molloy ; [essay, Gavin Delahunty].
246 30 |aIssue
264 1 |aNew York [New York] |bFLAG Art Foundation,|c2013.
300 |a39 pages :|billustrations (some colour) ;|c30 cm
336 |astill image|2rdacontent
336 |atext|2rdacontent
337 |aunmediated|2rdamedia
338 |avolume|2rdacarrier
504 |aIncludes bibliographical references.
518 |aCatalog of an exhibition held Feb. 8-May 18, 2013 at the FLAG Art
Foundation, New York.
588 |aTitle from cover.
600 10 |aMolloy, Tom|vExhibitions.
700 1 |aDelahunty, Gavin,$ewriter of added text. [May remmov $e on export]
710 2 |aFLAG Art Foundation$ehost institution. [May remove $e on export]
Notes on the sample:
Some limit 588 to sources outside the item, but our clients prefer not
having sources split up, and we see their point. In AACR2/MARC21
there was too much splitting of of related data, e.g., 245/$c and 508
noncast credits, 506 and 540 restrictions on access and usage. We
like exact note field coding (e,g, 518 for date and place of event)
because one does not need to manually create note order for
consistency.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
Jinny Wesson said concerning Understanding emplyment law, 2nd ed.:
The record shows Bales, Richard A. as the author in the 100 tag. I know
in AACR2, I always used the first author listed on title page. RDA
toolkit is confusing to me and I could not find information on this.
When cataloguing a later edition, we keep the original Cutter, but not
the main entry, if the order of authors changes on the title page.
To guess at major responsibility among more than one author is *not* a
good idea. Unless there is some other clear indication (such as
larger type face) the first author should be main entry.
Using RDA's fuzzy language to justify such guessing will result in
different descriptions and multiple records for the same
manifestation, and unacceptable variation in subject and added
entries, as well as differing citations.
I suspect this might be an error in editing the record from the
earlier edition record, as opposed to a choice made by the cataloguer.
Since this is a DLC record, it could be a carry over from a CIP
record, with order of authors changing during the publication process.
Somebody please correct that record on OCLC. I've reported it to LC.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Hedrun said:
Corporate bodies are considered to be the originator if
A) they have prepared the work or
B) they have initiated and edited the work
What about prepared by Alpha Consulting for Beta Society? Often
societies, government offices, and other corporate bodies, commission
a study, e.g., environmental assessments.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
John said:
The first edition of Understanding employment law on LCCN 2007026152
had Bales named first. The 2nd ed. on LCCN 2013004371 had Bales
named 3rd, so the authorized access point for the work still consists
of his authorized access point in the 100 plus the title in the 245.
This is a change from AACR2 practice.
This RDA idiocy had so far escaped my attention. Under which AACR2
rule should this go in the MRIs?
I suspect some of our clients would bounce this back to us as an
error, particularly if they don't own the earlier edition, and thus
have no clue what's going on. What if the author of the first edition
is dead, as is often the case with law books in their umpteenth
edition?
How will this work in Bibframe, where the later edition is a new work?
How does an edition statement of responsibility relate to this? Are
we back to putting Smith's Torts, 15th ed. by Tom Jones, under Smith
as main entry? That was an earlier pre AACR2 revision practice.
We are going to have to give some thought whether we will follow this
rule or not. It would not go over well.
Thanks for the explication John.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Multiple edition statements
Anne Laguna asked:
What is the feeling regarding multiple edition statements?
No problem. Field 250 has been made repeating.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Heidrun said:
The German rules for main entry under corporate bodies differ very much
from the Anglo-American tradition
Our practice has changed drastically. For example, once Journal of the
American Chemical Society would be been entered under the Society.
#1: a festschrift for a corporate body, e.g. for the 75th or 100th
anniversary of the body
No, the body would bet a 610 and perhaps a 710. but not a 110
(speaking in MARCese). It was not produced by the body. Festschrift
has multiple authors.
#2: a brochure produced by a corporate body to present itself and its
services to the public
Yes. 110 and 610, assuming no personal author. But is is borderline.
#3: the website of a corporate body
Depends of the nature of the website. Usually they are of mixed
responsibility, and would have title main entry.
My feeling as that all of these should have the corporate body as the
creator.
Make that a creator. Part of the ambiguity of RDA is creator. A
creator may be a main entry or and added entry. The old terminology
is clearer.
Undoubtedly, these publications deal with the body itself.
The resource should be both created by, *and* deal with, the body,
e.g., an annual report. Being about the body is not enough. Anyone
may write a history of a body, and that person would be the main entry.
What I say above is just my opinion, and the way SLC would do it. Others
may differ.
I remember a French cataloguer at an IFLA meeting, when corporate main
entry was more common in North America than now, sniffing at me and
saying Corporate bodies don't write books, people do.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA
In article
b0a8016e9ea6684cb471c70a64917206039352b10...@aub-ex.win2k.aub.edu.lb, you
wrote:
I am not sure what to put in 502|a.
I'm told 502$a is reserved for the full note, with no subfields, and
should not be used for the lacking Thesis, Dissertation, or other
term. I am told it should go first in $g. Nobody will arrest you if
you use $a.
Concerning which term to use, use the term the item uses to describe
itself in the language of the item, e.g., Thesis from A Thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements
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.
We do use subfield codes in 502 dissertation note, for greater
granularity, and in case there is every searching or limitation of
searching by one of those elements. We do not use subfields in 505
Contents, because titles have initial articles, and author's names are
in direct order, so are not suitable for indexing. The are accessed
by keyword searching.
Adam said:
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.
Whether it calls itself a thesis, dissertation, honour essay, or a non
English term would be important to some.
Just how many ILS are programed to display a print constant, and a
print constant not always accurate at that? Reminds me of calling a
100 criminal defendant Author:.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Location or venue needed as RDA relationship designator
SLC feels the need for location or venue as a relationship
designator, to use for venues such as galleries where an exhibition is
held, theatres and concert halls where performances are held.
Currently we are using host institution, but I suspect most don't
this of galleries, theatres, and concert halls as institutions.
Since venues may not have published the item issuing body can not
always be used.
What relationship designator are others using for venues?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 775 previous edition/different title/format
Patricia posted:
The previous ed. title is slightly different I think that matters
not at all.
Depends on whether the difference is in the first five words, seems to me.
Do 77X display in a meaningful way to patrons? Are 77X $t's indexed?
We would have:
246 1 $iPrevious edition title:$a ...
so that anyone searching by that title would find this later edition.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
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] Interpreting RDA (was: title page verso in 500 note)
Vickie said:
I applaud you for the response to this email
I'm certainly not the source for orthodox RDA answers as are Thomas,
Adam, and Kevin. It seems to me, rather than just interpreting the
text of RDA (like medieval theologians), we need to be constantly
aware of what appears on OPAC screens, and that should impact on our
interpretation, choice among RDA's many options, practice where RDA
lacks a clear instruction, and occasional jury nullification of an RDA
provision (e.g., non justification of added entries, non standard
capitalization).
No one matches Mark in keeping us abreast of current developments. He
is a boon to us all. What would be do without RDA-L and Autocat?
Continued blessings on Judith Hopkins. for making e-lists the resource
for us they have become.
O agree with you on look it up. As an avid high school reader, I
would circle any word I did not know, and consult a dictionary; a task
much easier these days with internet search engines. Several posters
have suggested that ILS which define a term if one hovers over it
would be better than abandoning short legacy terms.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] title page verso in 500 note
Karen Nelson said:
Title page verso. But, we are avoiding the Latin = terms in RDA as
often as possible.
The borrowed terms verso and recto are universal enough IMNSHO to
be used in notes, along with i.e. and e.g.. I agree that you
should spell out Title page; T.p. is less well known.
Even my limited spell check, which balks at catalogers and lacuna,
accepts all of the above (except IMNSHO).
Dumbing down has gone far enough.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA revisions and the November 2013 meeting of the Joint Steering Committee
John Attig said:
During the meeting, I will be posting a daily blog describing the discussio=
ns and decisions.
It would be really helpful to have a brief list of *approved* RDA changes
posted to this list for one stop shopping.
Thanks John.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Thomas posted:
100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003.
245 10 $a Sylvia / $c by Howard Fast
700 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003
In earlier practice, we would have [pseud.] after Fast in the
statement of responsibility to explain why the SOR differs from the
main entry, and a cross reference from Fast to Cunningham. That makes
sense. The above just looks like a mistake.
If Fast is established as an author, and earlier editions were not
under Cunninham, why is not Fast the main entry? (I tried to check
this in the LC catalogue, but got an unexpected system error
message.) Didn't Kevin say both names would need to be on the item,
to have both in the bibliographic record. as in A wrting as B?
The above is what I thought you originally advocated. But then I
understood both you and Kevin to say that is not what was intended.
Colour be confused.
Yes, these are two bibliographic identities. But they are the same
*person*.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Sorry, yet more on Fictional authors
Adger Williams asked:
Should the AP for this work/expression include notation that it was
originally in Bombastic?
Since we know this not to be true, I would limit recording it to a
quoted noted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
... the title page says updated edition and the verso says First
edition. The title was previously= published. Do I record both
statements or only the statement that I know = to be true?
I side with the minority on this one.
In 250 I would give the one s on the title page recto as peing the
prime source for the description. The verso statement may be a
forgotten carry over from the first printing. You could give it in a
quoted note I suppose, 500 $aFirst edition--Title page verso.
I say this even though 250 is now repeating. Having the First
edition in a 250 would be misleading I suspect.
While you might like 250 $a[First edition updated], it does not *say*
that. It will be interesting to see what the next edition, if any, is
called.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain
Thomas posted:
100 1_ $a Fletcher, Jessica
245 10 $a Trouble at high tide / $c by Jessica Fletcher Donald Bain.
700 1_ $a Bain, Donald, $d 1935-
While RDA does not require it, shouldn't we have $c(Fictitious
character) added to Fletcher? The authority says Use for Fletcher,
Jessica (Fictitious character), so more revision is needed than just
adding the qualification. There are see references from her maiden
name (McGill) and with her initials (J.B.).
Since entering under Fletcher with added entry under Bain reflects the
statement of responsibility, I've to no objection, so long as the
qualification is added. If Bain were not in the SOR, I would want him
as a see also cross reference, not an added entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Thomas said:
All cross-references are access points
That's a silly and confusing ambiguity, but unfortunately not the only
one in RDA. A cross reference leads one *to* an access point (or
entry as we have traditionally called it).
This understanding is just a carryforward from what was implicit in
AACR2 cataloging through its focus on headings and references for
works in bibliographic records.
A helpful distinction, the loss of which is resulting in more than one
entry for the same person or body in the same bibliographic record.
If getting with the program means having both Clemens and Twain as
entries in a bibliographic record, I not getting with the program.
We've changed from having Clemens as the entry, and Twain as the cross
reference, to the reverse. I am unwilling to have both as entries, as
the RDA ambiguity has already caused to happen with some authors with
two bibliographic identities.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Uniquesss of entry
The marvelous Mary said:
It has been suggested that the 100$a does not need to be unique
because other data/fields supply the disambiguation information.
IMNSHO that should even more be the case for 245, even with the loss
of the GMD. There is other disambiguation information.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Kevin said:
The point that seems to be missed here is that Fast, Howard,
1914-2003 is not a variant access point for the entity identified as
Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. It is an authorized access point for
a different entity ... Both forms of name are valid authorized access
points; as such, it is entirely appropriate to use one of them in a
variant access point for a work entered under the other name,
Are you saying that even if each is a 500 see also reference in the
authority record for the other, you want *both* as entries (main plus
added) in the same bibliographic record? I hope not. But this
new terminology makes it difficult for me to understand what
you are saying.
To me, a cross reference is a cross reference, whether see or see
also, and negates the need for an entry under the other form in a
bibliographic record.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of name access points
Benjamin said:
While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique
identifier for systems, there is still the need for users to
?distinguish easily between identically-named entities in an index.
It seems to me Benjamin is *very* right about this. Too much of our
discussion ignores the end result of what we do, and its purpose.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA
Thomas quoted an RDA example:
Authorized access point: Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
Variant access point: Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
I ain't gwine do dat. I agree with Adam that there should not be two
access points for the same person in the same bibliographic record.
A see or see also cross reference should take care of that.
There are other things I ain't gwine do, such as non standard title
capitalization, unjustified added entries, and two periods if the
edition statement ends in an abbreviation. We have practices
developed through centuries of experience, which we should not
sacrifice, whatever RDA allows.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
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] Uniform titles
Adam said:
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?
Yes, except for Shakespeare.
If you're gonna code a record as RDA, then I think you need to
dhere to the standard.
RDA does not say in which MARC21 field to put what data. WE have the
other language title in the record.
We don't catalogue on OCLC. The English/French pairs records we
contribute are for items published simultaneously. We could not get
away with picking one language over the other for a 130 or 240. I
suppose Anglophone libraries could pick English, and Francophone ones
French, but we catalogue for both, and don't want duplicate records.
RDA is hopelessly monolingual; so is Bibframe as currently planned.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities
Adam said:
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.
It's nice to agree with Adam. There should not be two entries for the
same person in a bibliographic record. That's the function of a see
or see also reference.
A difficulty is when a title is republished with, e.g., by Anne Rice
writing as Anne Rampling. I favour staying with Rampling as main
entry, particularly if their are earlier entries, and 600$a$t and/or
700$a$t entries for that title under that heading. The writing as
was omitted from James/Jan Morris' republished titles; LC has combined
the two bibliographic identities, as they normally do for a woman who
marries and changes her surname, e.g., Jean Riddle Weish.
__ __ 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)
Jack Wu said:
Perhaps the relationship designator of $e author should here be
changed to $e Dubious author, or perhaps $e attributed name, or $e
Pretended author.
Once upon a time, when we were more concerned with helping patrons
than theorizing, we inserted [pseud.] in the statment of
responsibility, now as forbidden as [i.e. ...], along with other
long term helpful practices.
Grumble.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA
Kathie Coblentz said:
Under RDA (9.2.2.8), each and every one of these alternate identities o=
ught to have an NAR of its own
Seem to me that would apply to 500 see also references, not 400 see
references. It's so long after the fact, I suspect most if not all
Voltaire's titles have appeared singly or in an anthology under
Voltaire.
Certainly Voltarie is the name by which he is best know, and which
appears in reference sources, as opposed to Mark Twain, Geronimo
Chilton, or Kermit.
It would be helpful to patrons to have [i.e. ...] in statements of
responsibility, if they lack Voltaire's name. But helpfullness seems
not to trump theory, nor hope for using harvested data unchanged,
these days.
The i.e. would be less work than a note, would show up in brief
display, and is certainly less work than establishing separate
bibliographic identities. That would also explain the difference
between the statement of responsibility and main entry.
I suspect we don't have legacy records entered under those pseudonyms
as we have for Rampling, nor I suspect do we have 600$a$t or 700$a$t
entries under those pseudonyms.
Calling see and see also references alternate access points is going
to result in more than one entry for the same person in the same
bibliographic record I fear.
Changing familiar terms was a major blunder IMNSO. What was wrong with
main entry, added entry, and cross reference? We knew what was
meant.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA
Kathie said:
Don't be too quick to suspect. There are eight records in OCLC for
editio= ns of Candide with Ralph, Mr., le docteur or a variant in
100, and two = others with Ralph in a 700. There are at least a
couple of records under = many, if not all, of Voltaire's multitude
of pseudonyms.
Fascinating. Bet that would not have happened in RLIN or WLN.
Obviously all manifestations of Candide should have the same main
entry, as well as the 600$a$t 700$a$t added entries,
LAC puts cross references in 9XX (in part to allow flipping of English
and French forms)m but apart from that, there should NEVER be two
entries for the same entity in the same bibliographic record.
The 700 you found should be a 100 in the bibliographic record, and the
present 100 of the bibliographic record a 400 in the authority
record. Those goofs are no reason to create separate bibliographic
identities. If there is an authority record for the pseudonym, it
should be deleted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
=20
Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger
Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing
The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313
New York, NY 10018
athiecoble...@nypl.org=20
=20
My opinions, not NYPL's
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)
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/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] French-language book, cataloged using English, with summary in French
In a private response, someone said to put the summary in quotation marks.
You could put it in quotes, followed by dash and the library in 040$a. You
are quoting the library which created the record.
Yes, if you can read the summary then you can read the book, and vice versa.
Vice versa if more relevant I think.
I would not remove data which might be helpful to some patrons. Rules
are supposed to help us, not limit us in serving patrons. Rules were
made for us, not us for the rules.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
Ann Ryan asked:
What relationship designator are people using for retitled works?
We KISS, e.g.:
246 3 $iOriginally published as:$aTeach yourself instant French.
There is not need for a second entry under the same author.
I do miss 503. Our records are becoming too complex.
__ __ 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)
Donna Gray-Williams asked:
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.
That's what we are doing, with $c(Fictitious character) always added.
the exceptions noted in earlier discussion, and adding the $c only to
break a conflict, create inconsistency, as do those 130 (Motion
picture) on some video records.
We used to say if a person breathed, 600, if not 650. We now say if a
personal name, fictitious or real, human or animal, 600. KISS
__ __ 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)
Jack Wu said:
I've always learned that a fictitious character is just that, a figment of =
our imagination. It is not capable of authorship (or as creator) unless =
it's a pseudonym of some real person.
We should describe things as they present themselves. It the title
page says it was written by Geronimo Chilton, that should be the main
entry and basis of Cutter, as opposed to scattering them about under
title Cutters. If we know the real identify of the person writing
under the name of a fictitious character, that name should be a cross
reference in the authority record of the bibliographic identity of the
fictitious character.
I don't see all that much distinction between Mark Twain and Geronimo
Chilton. Both are on the title page as author. We stopped entering
under Clemens decades ago.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] French-language book ... with summary in French
Kevin said:
But that is making the assumption that the person using the catalog
to find the item is fluent in the language of the item.
More common in my experience is someone looking for an item in his/her
first languge, and having difficulty with English. That's why we add
RVM and Bilendix subject headings to records for French and Spanish
materials. I understood some US libraries were doing that now?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] new edition
Malihheh posted:
If a statement of edition includes a diference in geographic coverage, it
can be new edition.
We most often see this in maps, including atlases.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] new edition
Maliheh said:
If a statement of edition includes a diference in geographic coverage, it
can be new edition
I should also have mentioned that we find these geographic edition
statements in newspapers.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] question about supplying/devising other title information
Linda Dausch quoted AACR2:
If the title proper needs explanation, supply a brief addition as
other title information, in the language of the title proper.
Margaret Mann's example was Fire [poems] I seem to recall, long
before AACR2. This is a time honoured practice.
I have a program for an ice skating revue tour and was wondering
about supplying the term [program] as other title information.
You are correct, I think, in interpreting RDA not to provide this, to
make it easier to use harvested data without change I've been told.
I find adding a note more work than supplying the one word.
Those added words will be in Bibframe from MARC crosswalk, so I would
say this is a good instance for jury nullification in the interest of
consistency with legacy records, very long standing practice, and
patron convenience. A note does not show up in brief display. Do it.
Anyone who uses your record and doesn't like it, can remove it, and do
their own note.
I don't expect many to agree with me on this. RDA makes too many
concessions to using harvested data, e.g., allowing non standard
capitalization.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper
Steven Arakawa said:
Both will have 245 00 $a John Rawls. One difference between RDA and
AACR2/LCRI was that monograph title main entry conflicts in the same
way that serial title main entry conflicts, so one of the collections
will need a 130 John Rawls with a qualifier.
How much simpler to insert a word in other title information ala
Margaret Mann.
100 Ashbery, John.
240 Poems. Selections
245 The tennis court oath : a book of poems / John Ashbery.
With the exception of music and Shakespeare, our clients dislike
uniform titles (130 or 240) not on the item. They particularly don't
like them if the title is distinctive. I agree with them,
particularly for ILS which display the 240 rather than the 245.
In most collections, there would be too few hits under authors such as
Asbery, John, to make the uniform title helpful. A little
pragmatism and awareness of patron preferences please.
See also Kevin Randall's perceptive comments in this thread. His
description of our practice as bizarre and inconsistent is spot on. I
can only assume lack of communication between theorists and end users.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Language of Media type/carrier type/content type
Ekhanan Adler asked:
What do people in non-English speaking countries do about the terminology o=
f these fields (MARC 336-338)?
I will pass you question along to EURIG, the European RDA Interest Group,
When cataloguing in Frency we use French, e.g.:
336 $atexte$2rdacontent
337 $a{acute}electronique$2isbdmedia
338 $aressource en ligne$2rdacarrier
I was surprised when LAC told us to use the same $2 as for the English.
We also use French $e relators when cataloguing in French:
abridger abrviateur
actor acteur
addressee destinataire
animator animateur
annotator annotateur
appellant appelant
appellee intim
architect architecte
arranger of musicarrangeur de musique
art director directeur artistique
artistartiste
authorauteur
autographersignataire autographe
binderrelieur
book designer graphiste
braille embosser producteur braille
broadcaster diffuseur
cartographer cartographe
casterfondeur
chairperson prsident, prsidente
choreographer chorgraphe
collection registrar conservateur de collections
collector collectionneur
collotyperphototypeur
commentator commentateur
compiler compilateur
composer compositeur
conductor chef d'orchestre
contributor contributeur
costume designer crateur de costumes
court governedtribunal rgi
court reporterrapporteur judiciaire
creator crateur
curator conservateur
current owner propritaire actuel
dancerdanseur
dedicatee ddicataire
dedicator ddicateur
defendant dfendeur
degree granting institution institution confrant des grades universitaires
depositor dposant
designer concepteur
director ralisateur
director of photography directeur de la photographie
donor donateur
draftsman dessinateur
editorditeur intellectuel
editor of compilation diteur intellectuel de compilation
editor of moving image work monteur d'ouvres d'images animes
enacting jurisdiction juridiction promulgatrice
engraver graveur
etcheraquafortiste
film director ralisateur de films
film distributor distributeur de films
film producer producteur de films
filmmaker cinaste
former owner ancien propritaire
honouree entit honore
honouree of item entit honore d'un item
host hte
host institution institution hte
illuminator enlumineur
illustrator illustrateur
inscriber ddicateur
instrumentalist instrumentiste
interviewee interview
interviewer intervieweur
inventor inventeur
issuing body organisme de publication
judge juge
jurisdiction governedjuridiction rgie
landscape architectarchitecte paysagiste
librettistlibrettiste
lithographer lithographe
lyricist parolier
manufacturer fabricant
moderator modrateur
musical directordirecteur musical
narrator narrateur
on-screen presenterpresentateur . l'cran
panelist paneliste
performer interprte
photographer photographe
plaintiff demandeur
platemakergraveur de planches
praeses praeses
presenter prsentateur
printer imprimeur
printmakergraveur d'estampes
producer producteur
production companysocit de production
production designerchef dcorateur
programmerprogrammeur
publisher organisme de publication
puppeteer marionnettiste
radio directorralisateur d'missions de radio
radio producerproducteur d'missions de radio
recording engineeringnieur du son
recordist operateurd'enregistrement
[researcher] rechercheur
respondent rpondant
restorationistrestaurateur
[reviewer]redacteur de la revue
screenwriter scnariste
sculptor sculpteur
sellervendeur
singerchanteur
speakerorateur
sponsoring body commanditaire
stage directormetteur en scne
storyteller conteur
[supervisor] surveillant
surveyor arpenteur
teacher enseignant
television directorralisateur d'missions de tlvision
television producerproducteur d'missions de tlvision
transcriber transcripteur
translator traducteur
writer of added commentary auteur de commentaire ajout
writer of added lyrics auteur de paroles ajoutes
writer of added text auteur de texte ajout
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper
Steven quoted RDA:
If the preferred title for a work is the same as or similar to a
title for a different work ... differentiate them ...
To resort of pre FRBR/RDA language we all understand, I think this
mist be understood as saying:
If the preferred title [main entry] for a work is the same as or
similar to a title for a different work ... differentiate them ...
Conversely, one may as does the PS, understand preferred title too
mean authorized access point.
It is clearly impossible to have a unique title for every work.
This demonstrates why we we the MRIs as opposed to the Toolkit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper
Thomas said:
RDA 5.3 says to record additional elements to differentiate identical
?titles of works.
In real life, I suspect most will add data to make titles unique only
for title main entries, and for author/title subject and added entries
for works in the *very* rare case of two works by the same author
having the same title proper. Otherwise, I suspect most will ignore
identical titles proper; they are very common. The access point with
an author can be unique, even if the title alone is not. The PS seems
to me to support that supposition, referring as it does to access
point rather than preferred title.
But when they are created, the policy is to follow RDA 5.3 to
differentiate works by creating unique authorized access points for
works.
I assume the reason you want an 046 date is that the 264$c applies to
the manifestation rather than the work? The MARC21 definitions of 046
subfields seem also to apply to manifestations. Since all we now
have are manifestation records, our clients are quite happy with
differences in the description making that differentiation. While
some use is made of 008 dates one and two, I am aware of none of our
clients making use of 046 in their ILS.
How would the data you suggest adding to fields other than 245 become
part of an access point? 046 for example?
The RDA records are much simpler, much cleaner, and far easier to
understand than the MARC records.
For you perhaps.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Robert Maxwell said:
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- $t Add kids, stir briskly
Many of our clients would not accept this. They do not want a 700
duplicating the 100 for the same item. They want direct access by the
alternate title, which the 246 provides. Many ILS do not index 7XX$t.
They do not want a second entry for the first part of the title (in
either 246 or 700$t); they see it as a duplication. It would be a
much simpler solution to have a $b after the or.
We haven't had a single client who wants 7XX$i. They reject it as
making no sense to patrons, and possibly interfering with indexing,
and certainly with display. They see the $i as being more like a note
than an entry.
Our object is to help people find material, not follow some theory
about relationships most do not understand.
SLC can't follow rules or practices which get records sent back to us.
It seems there is too little communication between rule theorists and
actual library users. In small libraries, feedback is direct and
instantaneous.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Mary said:
I understood the question to be about making 240 obsolete. Are you
suggesting that 240 be made obsolete but use 246 instead of 700?
The thread began (as the subject line indicates) with how to handle
alternate titles. I suggested a 246 for the alternate title, but not
the first portion of the title. I also said that in MARC the or
should be followed by a $b as is and for collections without a
collective title (we prefer a supplied title, with individual titles
in 505).
Clients never want a 700 which duplicates the 100.
For simultaneous publications, neither can be considered the
translation of the other, and in a bilingual country neither langauge
can be given prececence. A Quebec library would not want an English
uniform title for a French item which may be the original version.
So in this case, yes, 246 rather than 240. e.g.,
246 1 $iAlso published in French under title:$a[French title].
In French version record,
246 1 $iPubli{acute}e aussi en anglais sous le titre:$a[English
title]
I'm not the best person to comment on uniform titles in general. We
are often asked to recode them, particularly if they are in a language
other than that of the text (the collection does not have the other
language version to be united with this one), or if the 130 has
(Motion picture) and the item is a video (which they see as
misleading).
Most want unique 240s and 130s made 730s. Shakespeare and music are
exceptions to this.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
