Re: [RDA-L] Identifying a person of religious vocation
Is it possible that she might be Siostra Maria Goretti Nowak? http://gazetacz.com.pl/artykul.php?idm=432id=9957 It's hard to be certain, but this might be the same person as in this picture: http://martel-ksiazki.pl/image/cache/Ciasta_i_ciasteczka-500x500.jpg Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print 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] Identifying a person of religious vocation
Richard and Charles You could have Goretti, Maria, $c Siostra as an authorised access point (and therefore also as a variant access point, as here), following the optional addition of an Other term of rank, honour or office, at 9.19.1.6. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Charles Croissant Sent: 17 December 2013 20:03 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Identifying a person of religious vocation Richard, since you are dealing with a person in religion who may wind up being entered under her given name (Maria), note RDA instructions 9.4.1.8 (Other persons of religious vocation) and 9.2.2.18 (General Guidelines on Recording Names Containing Neither a Surname nor a Title of Nobility). The effect of these instructions is that Siostra is only recorded as part of the preferred name when the first element of the preferred name is a given name (in this case, Maria). If you choose Maria as the name by which Siostra Maria is commonly identified, then you can formulate her preferred name as 100 0_ $a Maria, $c Siostra i.e., you record Siostra as an integral part of her name. If on the other hand you decide that her name is Maria Goretti, i.e. you choose a name that contains a surname, there is no provision for recording Siostra as an integral part of the name, and your access point would be 100 1_ $a Goretti, Maria Since she is identified as Siostra Maria on your title page, I think you would be justified in establishing her as 100 0_ $a Maria, $c Siostra 400 1_ $a Goretti, Maria right now, this 400 doesn't conflict with any 100, so that would be OK -- your 400 only matches another 400, which is allowed. If you feel that Maria Goretti is this person's name in religion, i.e. that Goretti is not her surname, you could add this 400 as well: 100 0_ $a Maria, $c Siostra 400 1_ $a Goretti, Maria 400 0_ $a Maria Goretti, $c Siostra The one form that is not admissible under RDA is 100 1_ $a Goretti, Maria, $c Siostra since in this case the name chosen contains a surname, in which case Siostra should *not* be treated as an integral part of the name. Charles Croissant Pius XII Memorial Library, Saint Louis University On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Stewart, Richard rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org wrote: Hello all, I'd appreciate any thoughts about whether I'm on the right track in dealing with this name. I'm doing original cataloging of Ciasta i ciasteczka Siostry Marii (Sister Maria's cakes and cookies). The author's name appears as Siostry Marii (genitive case) on the title page and Siostra Maria Goretti on the verso of the t.p. So following 9.2.2.2 and 2.2.2, Siostra Maria would be the preferred form. I can find no biographical information on Siostra Maria, other than that she apparently runs an orphanage and bakery connected with a basilica in Poland. Luckily and to my surprise, the form I have chosen for the authorized access point, 100 0_ $a Maria, $c Siostra, does not conflict with any authorized or variant access points in the NAF. A wrinkle in constructing the variant access point (400 1_ $a Goretti, Maria, $c Siostra) is that Goretti may not be this individual's surname; rather I suspect that Maria Goretti may be her name in religion honoring Saint Maria Goretti. Am I right in supposing that I don't need to worry about this distinction in setting up the access point? Thanks in advance to the Collective Wisdom for any confirmation or correction. -- Richard A. Stewart Cataloging Supervisor Indian Trails Library District 355 Schoenbeck Road Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499 USA Tel: 847-279-2214 Fax: 847-459-4760 rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/ http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/ 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 -- Charles Croissant Senior Catalog Librarian Pius XII Memorial Library Saint Louis University St. Louis, MO 63108 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 ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Robert I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person's name being recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply was Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by subject headings, but I don't see anything that would prevent its use. We try to use topical terms when we can, but I've had no problem advising my cataloguers that the name of a corporate body or person could be appropriate in the situations you describe. The name heading for William Shakespeare appears in 372 in several LC/NAF NARs. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41 Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hi John, I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding name AAPs as one of the facets of their field of activity? I believe current NACO policy is that we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political jurisdictions -- how are they any different? So long as this data element is defined as field or fields of endeavour, area or areas of expertise, etc. where else would we record it? I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation 372 $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh 374 $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a Human rights $2 lcsh 374 $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the person's/body's output. I think the problem is that the data element is called Field of activity. Robert On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I think we've gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374. In most cases, a person doesn't need both. Some people seem to have gotten much too specific in these fields. An authority record does not have to be the same as a Wikipedia article. What purpose does that serve? The examples in RDA 9.15 are fairly general. I wouldn't say Stalin was a politician. I would say he was a dictator and a head of state. If you're looking for another class-of-persons term, you could use Communists, but communism isn't a field of activity, in my opinion. Similarly, I have seen authority records for corporate bodies where people want to make very narrow attributes. To use a made-up example, if there were a heading National Association of Skydivers. Board of Directors, some would add a 372 for National Association of Skydivers-Administration. I would question whether such a subordinate body needs any such field, but if so, I think it should be Skydiving, which would have been on the parent record. Does anyone think it makes sense to use a corporate body name as a field of activity? -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 05:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hello again. I'm wrangling with some of the 3xx fields for authority records, in order to produce some policy for using some of them in a coherent and fruitful way. I'm facing some problems, and neither the MARC field itself, nor RDA instructions, nor the use I've seen out there gives me a clear view. The main bump in the road is field 372. Let's say I'm working on Joseph Stalin. I'd like record and retrieve him as a politician (374), as a member of Communist Party of the Soviet Union (373), but I'd like to relate him with communism. So, recording Communism in 372 seems perfect for that purpose. But I would also record Comunism in 372 for a scholar historian on communism. Summing up, if I record 372
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Benjamin If I were writing the best practice guidelines, I’d be inclined to use “Physics” and “Poetry” in 372; the Einstein Symposium is (I assume) concnered with Einstein, and with Physics. We’ve tried to give our cataloguers a bit of guidance on the use of LCSH in NARs, in the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records, which can be found under Tools-Workflows-Global Workflows in the RDA Toolkit. A scetion at the end is called “LCSH in Name Authority Records”. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: 27 November 2013 15:12 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity I wonder if a best practice in this situation would be--like we often do with biographical material--to add a 372 $a referring to the class of person that the individual represents as well? [Made up examples:] 111 $a International Einstein Symposium 372 $a Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 $2 naf 372 $a Physicists $2 lcsh 111 $a Wallace Stevens Society. $b Annual Conference 372 $a Stevens, Wallace, 1879-1955 $2 naf 372 $a Poets, American--20th century $2 lcsh Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:57 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Robert I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person’s name being recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply was “Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by subject headings, but I don't see anything that would prevent its use”. We try to use topical terms when we can, but I’ve had no problem advising my cataloguers that the name of a corporate body or person could be appropriate in the situations you describe. The name heading for William Shakespeare appears in 372 in several LC/NAF NARs. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41 Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hi John, I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding name AAPs as one of the facets of their field of activity? I believe current NACO policy is that we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political jurisdictions -- how are they any different? So long as this data element is defined as field or fields of endeavour, area or areas of expertise, etc. where else would we record it? I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation 372 $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh 374 $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a Human rights $2 lcsh 374 $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the person's/body's output. I think the problem is that the data element is called Field of activity. Robert On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I think we’ve gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374. In most cases, a person doesn’t need both. Some people seem to have gotten much too specific in these fields. An authority record does not have to be the same as a Wikipedia article. What purpose does that serve? The examples in RDA 9.15 are fairly general. I wouldn’t say Stalin was a politician. I would say he was a dictator and a head of state. If you’re looking for another class-of-persons term, you could use
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
broadly defined in RDA 9.15 as a: field of endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a person is engaged or was engaged. You could propose that Field of endeavour and Area of expertise be two separate data elements, but for now they are lumped together. Being in a law library I have run into this issue because legal academics often write about unsavory topics. When I put terms like Rape or War crimes or Family violence in the Field of activity data element I often pause and think, Wait, am I making it sound like this person is a perpetrator of these things? Thus: 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh and 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh 374 $a War criminals $a Generals $2 lcsh For the punk rock example you could also have: 372 $a Punk rock music $2 lcsh 374 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh and 372 $a Punk rock music--History and criticism $2 lcsh 374 $a Music critics $2 lcsh Robert -- Robert Bratton Cataloging Librarian George Washington University Law Library Washington, DC 20052 On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote: Ricardo All you are doing with 372 Punk rock music, is expressing that the person has that field of activity. It's the 374 that tells you their occupation, in relation to that field: 372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh 372 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh or 372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh 372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh and of course you can put more than one thing in 372: 372 $a Punk rock $a Musical criticism $2 lcsh 372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc. CA] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo Sent: 14 November 2013 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hello again. I'm wrangling with some of the 3xx fields for authority records, in order to produce some policy for using some of them in a coherent and fruitful way. I'm facing some problems, and neither the MARC field itself, nor RDA instructions, nor the use I've seen out there gives me a clear view. The main bump in the road is field 372. Let's say I'm working on Joseph Stalin. I'd like record and retrieve him as a politician (374), as a member of Communist Party of the Soviet Union (373), but I'd like to relate him with communism. So, recording Communism in 372 seems perfect for that purpose. But I would also record Comunism in 372 for a scholar historian on communism. Summing up, if I record 372 Punk-rock, Am I expressing that the guy is a musician (374), specialized in doing punk-rock music, or Am I indicating that he/she is a music critic (374), expert on punk-rock music? Thanks in advance for opinions and experiencies. Ricardo Santos Muñoz Depto. de Proceso Técnico Biblioteca Nacional de España Tfno.: 915 807 735 ** Experience the British Library online at www.bl.ukhttp://www.bl.uk/ The British Library's latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.htmlhttp://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/in dex.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabookhttp://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled ** *** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmas...@bl.ukmailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. ** *** Think before you print ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep
Re: [RDA-L] Conference names without meeting, symposium a.s.o.
Heidrun I wouldn't assume that the title of a conference's proceedings was the name of the conference itself, without an explicit statement to that effect. It does have us scratching our heads occasionally - it's a new issue to deal with, now that LCRI 21.1.B1 has bitten the dust. We were very glad to see the change in practice, though. We started following the LCRIs nearly 20 years ago, and it was most frustrating that a conference would be considered un-named even in the face of a statement like these are the proceedings of a conference, held as one of a series of conferences at the so-and-so conference centre, and the name of the conference is Fish. Un-named. Strictly speaking. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 05 November 2013 19:33 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Conference names without meeting, symposium a.s.o. Reading up on the treatment of conferences under RDA, I got a bit worried when I came to the question of the name of a conference. There's a very good presentation http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_conferences.ppt which, among many other useful things, explains that the name of conference does not have to include a word like meeting, symposium a.s.o. any longer (slides 3-7). One of the examples given in the British Library guide to RDA name authority records (in the Toolkit, under global workflows) is: 111 2_ |a Ritual, Conflict and Consensus: Comparing Case Studies in Asia and Europe (Conference) |d (2010 : |c Budmerice, Slovakia) http://lccn.loc.gov/nb2012014893 So far, so good. But I find it difficult to imagine how this rule works in practice. In the Ritual example, there seems to have been explicit information in the book which made it clear that Ritual, Conflict and Consensus: Comparing Case Studies in Asia and Europe really was the name of the event (as the 670 field shows). But I assume that in many cases, all you've got is a resource with some title and some indication that the contents of the resource are the proceedings of a meeting, symposium or some such, which was held in a certain a place at a certain time. The title of the book may be the exact name of the conference (as it was held), or it may be something similar to the original name, or maybe the conference was called something quite different. For example, there is a book with the title proper Johannes Secundus und die roemische Liebeslyrik (Janus Secundus and Roman love poetry). In the preface, a symposium in Freiburg in 2002 is mentioned, but without giving a formal name of this. After some googling, I have reason to believe that the official name of the conference, when it was held, was 4. Neulateinisches Symposion (4th Neo-Latin Symposium). Note that I got this information not from the preferred sources of information in resources associated with the corporate body which should be the first place to look (RDA 11.2.2.2), but from other sources (including reference sources). So, maybe I shouldn't have looked there at all... 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. But if I had only looked at the book (and I really don't think German catalogers have much time to spare for research), I might instead have decided that Johannes Secundus und die roemische Liebeslyrik was the name of the conference. Or should, according to 11.2.2.5.4 Conventional Name (exception for conferences etc.), 4. Neulateinisches Symposion be considered to be the more general name as one of a series of conferences, and Johannes Secundus und die roemische Liebeslyrik considered to be the specific name of its own? Then the latter should be chosen as the preferred name of the conference (although I can't even be sure that the title of the book exactly reflects the topic as it was announced for the symposium). I do hope somebody can ease my mind and give me some hints as to how these things are treated in practice. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records
Adam It always struck me as odd that 3XX fields were added to MARC 21 because of RDA, but not named to correspond to the RDA elements they map to. Maybe it was thought that codes other than RDA might want to use them. 368 was extended to cover persons as well as corporate bodies, in order to accommodate RDA 9.6 and 9.4 http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-04.html We proposed this in parallel with 6JSC/BL/4 http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#bl-4 so that when 9.6 was widened in scope, we’d have somewhere to put the element in a MARC record. Also titles. Regards Richard From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: 28 October 2013 19:17 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records Richard, Interesting, although I find it to be a bit of a stretch to say that using terms like this in 368 $c connotes an “other designation” in the RDA sense. Although the field is defined as “Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body”, I think I’d prefer a new subfield for “other attribute” rather than “other designation” which is RDA terminology. Or else perhaps rename the subfield $c as “Other attribute” which would be more understandable to put terms like Nobel Prize winner. But the more I think about it, however, I can almost see how terms like this could even be used (in the singular) in a $c qualifier in an access point to break a conflict. I think I’ve come around (didn’t take long!) but I think we should rename 368 $c “Other attribute” or “Other attribute or designation”. Adam From: Moore, Richard mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 12:52 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records Adam Although you can’t do this: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 386$a Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 386$a Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh You can put these terms in 368: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 368 $c Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 368 $c Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh The reason we argued at MARBI (as was) that 386 should be limited to name-title authorities is that in the personal NAR, controlled vocabularies are already used in 368 and 374 to record the same kinds of thing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records
Adam Although you can't do this: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 386$a Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 386$a Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh You can put these terms in 368: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 368 $c Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 368 $c Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh The reason we argued at MARBI (as was) that 386 should be limited to name-title authorities is that in the personal NAR, controlled vocabularies are already used in 368 and 374 to record the same kinds of thing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Heidrun I agree. There's an inconsistency (inherited from FRAD) in the way places are defined as attributes in Chapter 9, and in Chapter 11. For persons, they are enumerated as separate elements for Place of Birth, Place of Death, Country Associated with the Person, and Place of Residence, Etc. However, for corporate bodies, Place Associated with the Corporate Body are lumped together in one element. There are sub-elements for Location of Conference, Etc., and Location of Headquarters, but in 11.3.1.1 these are just examples (note the instruction says .e.g.). So any kind of location associated with the body in any way would, it seems to me, be in scope. In FRAD 4.3, Place associated with the corporate body is a geographic area at any level associated with the corporate body. In MARC 21, You can record headquarters location in 370 $e, associated country in $c, and any other kind of associated place in $f (for example an area where a body is active). It would be useful if these could be broken down as separate elements in RDA Chapter 11, and the structure of Chapters 9 and 11 made consistent in this respect. We had a slightly different problem in Chapter 9, in that nothing in RDA corresponded to 370 $f. This is why 9.11 is now Place of Residence, Etc.. I think there's a problem with 11.3.3.3, that could be resolved by having clearly defined elements for the kinds of places associated with corporate bodies. In the examples, Ill. is not the location of headquarters of the Illinois Republican Party. According to its website, its headquarters are Springfield and Chicago. Illinois is the area where it is active (I would put this in 370 $f). There should be an element for it. Similarly, the National Measurement Laboratory (now the National Measurement Institute) has its headquarters in Sydney (370 $e). Australia is its associated country (370 $c). So these different types of place should be clearly distinguished as RDA elements. The text of 11.3.3.3 actually belongs in 11.13.1.3, as it's about constructing the access point, not about recording the element. I think a proposal is needed to restructure what is now in 11.3, on the lines above. There is a similiar issue with 11.7, which we've tried to resolve with 6JSC/BL/12rev. I guess the BL would be willing to draft something for JSC 2014, unless anyone else wants to. I'm sure cataloguers would like us to stop tinkering with RDA. But things like this keep coming up, that need to be done. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 28 October 2013 08:51 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place? Adam said: I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict. Yes, that seems very plausible. One gets the feeling that the person(s) who wrote the instruction were mainly thinking of access points and not of the recording of places as separate elements. But in MARC certainly more than one place can be recorded in the 370 $e. That's very good to hear. So there should be no objection to the German community recording more than one place, if appropriate. I think a simple fix would be to propose a wording change to 11.3.3.3 that says record the name of the local place or places ... Yes, and that might even go on a fast track. On the other hand, there is another thing in 11.3.3.3 which I find a bit odd, and which might warrant a full proposal: Doesn't the instruction mix up two quite different things? - the area in which a corporate body is active - the local place in which a corporate body has its headquarters A corporate body may well have a a character that is national, state, provincial, etc. and also have an easily identifiable local place where it is located. It should be possible to record both kinds of place, preferably in different elements. So it might be a good idea to define a new element place of activity to keep the two aspects apart. Mind, I quite understand that in such a case the state etc. will be more helpful for breaking a conflict than the place of the headquarters. But I believe this should be handled by a rule under 11.13 (Constructing access points to represent corporate bodies) and not by one in 11.3. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Heidrun I agree. There's an inconsistency (inherited from FRAD) in the way places are defined as attributes in Chapter 9, and in Chapter 11. For persons, they are enumerated as separate elements for Place of Birth, Place of Death, Country Associated with the Person, and Place of Residence, Etc. However, for corporate bodies, Place Associated with the Corporate Body are lumped together in one element. There are sub-elements for Location of Conference, Etc., and Location of Headquarters, but in 11.3.1.1 these are just examples (note the instruction says .e.g.). So any kind of location associated with the body in any way would, it seems to me, be in scope. In FRAD 4.3, Place associated with the corporate body is a geographic area at any level associated with the corporate body. In MARC 21, You can record headquarters location in 370 $e, associated country in $c, and any other kind of associated place in $f (for example an area where a body is active). It would be useful if these could be broken down as separate elements in RDA Chapter 11, and the structure of Chapters 9 and 11 made consistent in this respect. We had a slightly different problem in Chapter 9, in that nothing in RDA corresponded to 370 $f. This is why 9.11 is now Place of Residence, Etc.. I think there's a problem with 11.3.3.3, that could be resolved by having clearly defined elements for the kinds of places associated with corporate bodies. In the examples, Ill. is not the location of headquarters of the Illinois Republican Party. According to its website, its headquarters are Springfield and Chicago. Illinois is the area where it is active (I would put this in 370 $f). There should be an element for it. Similarly, the National Measurement Laboratory (now the National Measurement Institute) has its headquarters in Sydney (370 $e). Australia is its associated country (370 $c). So these different types of place should be clearly distinguished as RDA elements. The text of 11.3.3.3 actually belongs in 11.13.1.3, as it's about constructing the access point, not about recording the element. I think a proposal is needed to restructure what is now in 11.3, on the lines above. There is a similiar issue with 11.7, which we've tried to resolve with 6JSC/BL/12rev. I guess the BL would be willing to draft something for JSC 2014, unless anyone else wants to. I'm sure cataloguers would like us to stop tinkering with RDA. But things like this keep coming up, that need to be done. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 28 October 2013 08:51 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place? Adam said: I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict. Yes, that seems very plausible. One gets the feeling that the person(s) who wrote the instruction were mainly thinking of access points and not of the recording of places as separate elements. But in MARC certainly more than one place can be recorded in the 370 $e. That's very good to hear. So there should be no objection to the German community recording more than one place, if appropriate. I think a simple fix would be to propose a wording change to 11.3.3.3 that says record the name of the local place or places ... Yes, and that might even go on a fast track. On the other hand, there is another thing in 11.3.3.3 which I find a bit odd, and which might warrant a full proposal: Doesn't the instruction mix up two quite different things? - the area in which a corporate body is active - the local place in which a corporate body has its headquarters A corporate body may well have a a character that is national, state, provincial, etc. and also have an easily identifiable local place where it is located. It should be possible to record both kinds of place, preferably in different elements. So it might be a good idea to define a new element place of activity to keep the two aspects apart. Mind, I quite understand that in such a case the state etc. will be more helpful for breaking a conflict than the place of the headquarters. But I believe this should be handled by a rule under 11.13 (Constructing access points to represent corporate bodies) and not by one in 11.3. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32,
Re: [RDA-L] academic degrees in authorized access points
Tim We discussed recently on the PCC list whether such terms could be considered Other designations under 9.19.1.7, and came to no firm conclusion. I agree with you that Profession or Occupation is more useful. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Watters, Tim (MDE) Sent: 24 October 2013 14:44 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] academic degrees in authorized access points When I do this search in the OCLC authority file: dx:rda and pn:ph.d. A few of the results include an academic degree in the 100 $c I did not find any instruction in RDA 9.19.1 to add academic degrees to the authorized access point. It seems like it would make more sense to add the profession or occupation. Is this a case of cataloger's judgment? Thanks Tim Watters Special Materials Cataloger Library of Michigan 702 West Kalamazoo St P.O. Box 30007 Lansing, MI 48909-7507 Tel: 517-373-3071 e-mail: watte...@michigan.gov
Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities
Our OPAC used to provide authority records and navigable see-also references, but now doesn’t. Sometimes lack of understanding between creators and users of the data on the one hand, and providers of the systems on the other, makes us take a step backwards rather than forwards. This needs to change if the potential of RDA is to be realised… Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: 16 October 2013 19:59 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities And really what we need are systems that use the relationships in authority records to offer the user choices. You search for Barbara Vine and the system asks you if you also want to retrieve her real identity Ruth Rendell. Our OPACs don’t do a great job with this yet. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Pamela Dearinger mailto:deari...@plu.edu Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities Well, I don't know what to do about that either. I was actually just responding to the following: But I would not like to start seeing records that have a 100 for the named person on the resource and a 700 for the actual author and I meant to say some of us don't pay attention to what we are reading, but I wasn't paying enough attention to what I wrote. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM, McDonald, Stephen steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu wrote: Pamela Dearinger said: OCLC #779266283 is a recent example, not RDA, with a 100 for Vine, Barbara, a 700 for Rendell, Ruth, and this in the 245: Ruth Rendell, writing as Barbara Vine and I find that helpful. Isn't it good for people to know that Vine is a pseudonym for Rendell, and to see that multiple times, because we don't all pay much otherwise. I'm thinking as a reader, looking for a book by an author I am familiar with, but not necessarily familiar with the pseudonyms. Unfortunately, that is probably a direct quotation from the title page of the book. That doesn't help us decide how to deal with cases where the book itself does not tell us the name is a pseudonym. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
RDA doesn't require authorized access points. 9.1.2 says An authorized access point is one of the techniques used to represent ... a person. 18.4.1 gives two ways to record a relationship between a resource and a person (etc.) associated with it: by using one of these techniques: a) identifier and/or b) authorized access point. Currently we choose to create authorized access points, but in the brave new world of linked data we might only need to record separate elements, and identifiers. There is a school of thought that the authorized access point should be regarded as a temporary device until we get there. So all 9.4.1.3 is saying, is that you can record a Title of Nobility as a separate element, or you can use it in an access point, or you can do both (as we do now). 9.19.1.2 says that if you *do* create an access point, you include the title. That's my understanding, anyway. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: 16 October 2013 20:54 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both. It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2 for specific instructions on recording as part of an access point. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:36 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility I find it difficult to reconcile the following two RDA instructions concerning titles of nobility: 9.4.1.3 (Recording Titles of Persons) says: Record titles as separate elements, as parts of access points, or as both. This also refers to titles of nobility (9.4.1.5). So 9.4.1.3 seems to allow for recording a title of nobility as a separate element *only* (i.e. not also as part of the access point). On the other hand, 9.19.1.1 (General Guidelines on Constructing Access Points to Represent Persons) says: Make the additions specified at 9.19.1.2 even if they are not needed to distinguish access points representing different persons with the same name. 9.19.1.2 lists, among other things, a title of (…) nobility (see 9.4.1.5). So this rule seems to say that a title of nobility must *always* be recorded as part of the access point. This seems somewhat contradictory. Perhaps there is something I've overlooked? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Welcome back to LC
I'd like to welcome back our colleagues at the Library of Congress. Regards Richard Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Adam
They should, and we ought to have relationship designators “Character created
by” and “Creator of character” to express the relationship. And then persuade
system designers to ensure that they make authorities available to the user,
properly linked, so that these relationships can be navigated.
Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: 15 October 2013 08:59
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Such cross-references belong in authority records, but there are going to be
times when you simply don’t know who the actual author is. For example, Kermit
the Frog’s books just say they are by him. There is nothing to cross-reference
unless one does extensive research to determine who the actual author is, if
that is possible. RDA does not allow you to add bracketed “[i.e. ]”
statements of responsibility. It would permit you to add a note, however,
something like “Actual author: ”. But I would not like to start seeing
records that have a 100 for the named person on the resource and a 700 for the
actual author. Those should be cross-refs in authority records I think.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
From: Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger mailto:lyn...@provolibrary.com
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 11:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Mac,
I am concerned that in all our discussions of fictitious characters as
preferred access points, our many patrons will be confused (not to mention
bemused) by the direction we are taking. That said, I like your idea of adding
the Rowling cross reference to Biddle. That would neatly direct the patron who
actually searched for works by J.K. Rowling to Biddle the Bard. BTW the
fictitious character is Geronimo Stilton.
Thanks for your input! I save most of your comments in my RDA folder--along
with Bob Maxwell's and other frequent contributors who know far more about RDA
than I ever will.
Lynne J. LaBare
Senior Librarian, Cataloger
Provo Library at Academy Square
550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618
801.852.7672
801.852.6670 (fax)
Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us
On 10/14/2013 11:25 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Martin Kelleher wrote:
Thinking about it that way sadly doesn;t make it sound any less
ridiculous.
Entering Rowling under Biddle is no more ridiculous than entering
Clemens under Twain. Mark Twain is a Mississippi River boaters'
call, no more a person than Geronimo Chilton.
While I would favour including in the statement of responsibility
[i.e. Samuel L. Clemens], or [i.e. J. K. Rowling], RDA purists
would not approve. We are dependent on authority cross references.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
**
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts :
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or
copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*
Think before you print
inline: image001.jpg
Re: [RDA-L] Finding examples of RDA authority records for personal names and corporate bodies
Sevim There are examples in the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records, in the RDA Toolkit: Tools - Workflows - Global Workflows Go to Contents in this Guide, and click on Examples of RDA Name Authority Records. All are real NARs, present in LC/NAF. As they are examples, they have been kept up to date with all the changes and additions to RDA. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM Sent: 13 October 2013 17:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Finding examples of RDA authority records for personal names and corporate bodies My colleague and I are preparing a presentation for people new to authority work about creating NARs in RDA (it's a presentation for participants in the Ohio NACO Funnel). We'd like to find examples of personal and corporate body names that use many of the 3xx fields. Both straightforward and interesting/challenging examples would be useful. 1. Is there a way to search the authority file for just RDA records? 2. Would anyone care to share NARs they have done or come across that fit the bill? Thank you, (Ms.) Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Pat I agree, we don't want them to look like real people, which is why we proposed the addition of Fictitious character as a core element last year. The same applies to access points for real non-human entities. This is why 9.19.1.2 is how it is. It's important to the functional objective Identify in RDA 8.2, and the user task Contextualize in FRAD 6, that users are able to distinguish access points that are for real persons, and for human persons, from access points that are not. As has been said, this will all be discussed by JSC next month. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Patricia Sayre-McCoy Sent: 08 October 2013 20:51 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) Surely we include fictitious character for these names? Do we really want them to look like real people? Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 2:37 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) This access point for Wiggin, Ender was first established by BYU *without* a qualifier, following LC's instructions only to add qualifier to these access point if there was a conflict. Somebody at BL took it upon themselves to add the qualifier (without the appropriate subfield coding, as you note). I do not think it was appropriate to change this access point, since there was no conflict at the time it was established and there is no new conflict now. (Subsequently somebody at Washington corrected the subfield coding). The access point for Wiggin, Peter was first established by BYU *with* a qualifier (correctly coded) because there *was* a conflict with another Peter Wiggin. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I'm working through today's name authority changes wondering why I'm finding: ‡a Wiggin, Ender (Fictitious character) but ‡a Wiggin, Peter ‡c (Fictitious character) Is this simply two different agencies interpreting the rules differently? We don't catalog a lot of fiction here so I've not much experience with fictitious characters. I do edit our base library records occasionally they have a number of Card's titles. I'd send this to LChelp4rda but I am guessing they are not back at work as yet. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
Kevin App. E would suggest “Beedle|c(Bard) (Fictitious Character)”, as we don’t currently have colons available, in RDA syntax, to separate qualifiers in access points for personal names. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adger Williams Sent: 04 October 2013 17:54 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors Or perhaps, Beedle|c(Bard: Fictitious Character)? On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM, rball...@frontier.com rball...@frontier.com wrote: I know that RDA now allows fictitious characters to serve as authorized access points. The book The tales of Beedle the Bard was originally entered under the author J.K. Rowling. The cover shows Rowling's name alone. The title page, however, reads: The tales of Beedle the Bard / translated from the ancient runes by Hermoine Granger ; commentary by Albus Dumbledore ; introduction, notes and illustrations by J.K. Rowling. Should the AAP now be under Granger rather than Rowling, with additional access points for Dumbledore and Rowling? Thanks in advance. Kevin Roe Supervisor, Media Processing Fort Wayne Community Schools 1511 Catalpa St. Fort Wayne IN 46802 -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319
Thanks Adam. If 1.9.2.5 provides a precedent for the text, then maybe I’ll write a proposal also to use it in 9.3, for JSC to consider next year. Regards Richard From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: 02 October 2013 19:11 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319 I think you would have to say $d active 14th century 1.9.2.5 would allow you to do [between 1310 and 1319] for a publication date, but it does not apply to dates of birth. It doesn’t appear that you could do $d [between 1310 and 1319]- The only other option I could see would be to use an approximate date, splitting the difference in dates: $d approximately 1315- Adam Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries From: Moore, Richard mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319 We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319. We can record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with it in an RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn’t have an example of “between 1310 and 1319”, but should this mean we can’t do it? It’s as comprehensible as “approximately”. If it’s considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful addition to propose? Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk ** Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmas...@bl.uk mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Additional JSC response documents
Adam I agree with you that Fictitious character from Card isn't an appropriate qualifier. 9.19.1.2 instructs to add the term Fictitious character to names for fictitious characters. There is no instruction to modify this qualifier into a phrase. I don't think Fictitious character from Card is either appropriate or clear. Nor would it be appropriate at the element level (currently MARC 21 368 $c). 9.6.1.7 says For a fictitious or legendary person, record Fictitious character, Legendary character, or another appropriate designation. Another appropriate designation is intended to apply in cases where Fictitious character or Legendary character are not appropriate (Mythical animal, vampire, etc.). For a fictitious character, the qualifier is Fictitious character. If the resulting authorized access point is not unique, it ought to be additionally qualified under 9.19.1.7. As you say, current RDA syntax would require: Bean (Fictitious character) (Card) though I think this could be fixed by a proposal to change the syntax and provide an example to legitimise LCSH practice: Bean (Fictitious character : Card) which would make it easier to translate all those acess points from the LCSH file into LC/NAF. I think your example would be coded $a Bean $c (Fictitious character) (Card), with one $c, as multiple adjacent titles or words associated with a name are contained in a single subfield $c. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: 02 October 2013 00:35 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional JSC response documents Regarding the 6JSC/BL/13/LC response at http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-13-LC-response.pdf http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-13-LC-response.pdf , please note a typo in the first example on page 8: Puymaigre, Th. de, (Theodore), comte There should not be a comma after de. I also continue to have concerns that the current text nor the proposed revisions deal with the very common issue of fictitious characters that have same preferred name. I would like to see RDA address this somewhere. Under RDA it is not clear whether 9.6.1.7 or 9.6.1.9 is applicable in such a case. For example, some PCC libraries are contributing records to the LC/NACO Authority File like this one: 100 0_ Bean $c (Fictitious character from Card) Does the qualifier Fictitious character from Card fall under another appropriate designation from 9.6.1.7 or does it fall under 9.6.1.9? 9.6.1.9 is limited to use when non of the five attributes listed there are sufficient or appropriate for distinguishing two or more persons with the same name. None of those five attributes includes the designation for fictitious and legendary persons, and yet that designation is equally appropriate for two fictitious persons with the same name. It seems to me therefore that for two fictitious persons who would otherwise have the same access point, RDA tells you to record two attributes: 1) Fictitious character, etc. from 9.6.1.7. 2) An other designation to further distinguish the persons, from 9.6.1.9. That other designation could be the surname or name of the creator of the character, or perhaps something else, but would the additions be made like this?: Bean (Fictitious character) (Card) Bean (Fictitious character) (Barrows) (and how would this be coded in MARC, with two $c's or one?) If 9.6.1.7 is not appropriate in a situation like the one above, then I think RDA needs to say so and indicate that 9.6.1.9 would be applicable instead and an example should be provided to show that. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu * ** ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St
[RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319
We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319. We can record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with it in an RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn't have an example of between 1310 and 1319, but should this mean we can't do it? It's as comprehensible as approximately. If it's considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful addition to propose? Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Composite identities/pseudonyms in RDA?
Mac, you said I don't agree with LC that it is OK to have one unqualified form of a name (other than undifferentiated ones) if all other forms of that name are qualified I agree that it's really not useful to leave one name unqualified, when that preferred name has been used more than once. Bib records for other identities cluster behind such access points in library catalogues, then acquire erroneous data when someone comes along and adds a qualifier to the access point, so that they can establish yet another unqualified name for a new author. The BL follows NACO guidelines in not changing existing access points unless absolutely necessary, but we fall on the side of making optional additions to new names, when the preferred name has already been used in another authorized access point, specifially to avoid confusion of this kind, and the extra work it creates. I think it would be useful to allow more leeway in making additions to existing access points, to help identify authors and avoid confusion in databases. Especially when creating unique authorities for persons formerly represented in undifferentiated NARs. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree
Adam To be fair, this is the British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand/ South African/Indian/Rest of the World spelling ;-) RDA had to choose one spelling or the other, and having made its choice, there would be no particular reason to change it. LC use color in their descriptions (e.g. LC-PCC-PS for 7.17.1.3), but as you say, relationship designators are from a controlled vocabulary. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: 06 August 2013 00:15 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree The list of designators is a controlled list, and as best as I can say, you must use the term there as found, with the British/Canadian spelling. The records that you've found that don't are, in my opinion, incorrect. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dana Van Meter wrote: Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:33:59 -0400 From: Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree Still seeking info. on this, especially now as I see that the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) advises to use the spelling Honoree rather than Honouree. Anyone from LC or PCC know if there is anything in the works to create a PS stating to use the spelling Honoree for RDA? Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree I know there is an LC-PCC PS stating to use the American spelling of color, but don't see any such LC-PCC PS for the spelling of the relationship designator honouree. Doing a keyword search for rda and honouree in a personal name yields 282 hits in LC's catalog, but doing the same search with honoree yields 24 hits. Most of the 24 records have an 040 with only DLC in it, however many of these are In Process. We get a lot of Feschrifts at my institution, so while it appears honouree is the predominately used spelling (and indeed the spelling in RDA), I'm just wondering if anyone knows if LC or PCC has looked at the spelling of honouree and if there might be a PS in the future saying to use the spelling honoree. Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
[RDA-L] Workflows in RDA Toolkit
Is anyone in a position to know what has happened to the Local and Global Workflows in the RDA Toolkit, following the July 2013 update? The links under Workflows have disappeared, leaving just Create Workflow, Shared Workflows and My Workflows. When clicked, Shared Workflows says Feature not yet implemented. Our cataloguers rely on Workflows for all our internal RDA documentation, and we also share documents internationally. As of this morning, no Workflow is visible. Alternatively, can anyone see the Workflows? Perhaps it's just us ... Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Workflows in RDA Toolkit
This seems to be global. We've alerted the publishers. Regards Richard From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 10 July 2013 07:28 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Workflows in RDA Toolkit Is anyone in a position to know what has happened to the Local and Global Workflows in the RDA Toolkit, following the July 2013 update? The links under Workflows have disappeared, leaving just Create Workflow, Shared Workflows and My Workflows. When clicked, Shared Workflows says Feature not yet implemented. Our cataloguers rely on Workflows for all our internal RDA documentation, and we also share documents internationally. As of this morning, no Workflow is visible. Alternatively, can anyone see the Workflows? Perhaps it's just us ... Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Workflows in RDA Toolkit
This has now been fixed. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 10 July 2013 09:48 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Workflows in RDA Toolkit This seems to be global. We've alerted the publishers. Regards Richard From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 10 July 2013 07:28 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Workflows in RDA Toolkit Is anyone in a position to know what has happened to the Local and Global Workflows in the RDA Toolkit, following the July 2013 update? The links under Workflows have disappeared, leaving just Create Workflow, Shared Workflows and My Workflows. When clicked, Shared Workflows says Feature not yet implemented. Our cataloguers rely on Workflows for all our internal RDA documentation, and we also share documents internationally. As of this morning, no Workflow is visible. Alternatively, can anyone see the Workflows? Perhaps it's just us ... Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
[RDA-L] BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records - July 2013 changes
Dear colleagues Changes to RDA were published this week, to implement the decisions of JSC last November. The BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records has been updated to reflect these changes. It can be found here: RDA Toolkit -Tools --Workflows ---Global workflows BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records The updated Guide has been reviewed by colleagues at LC/PCC, who were kind enough to take the time to plough through it and suggest additions and amendments, which have all been incorporated. The Guide is consistent with the LC-PCC-PS, DCM:Z1 and the Post-RDA Test Guidelines. Sections of the Guide are not numbered (to avoid confusion with RDA instruction numbers), but navigation is by hyperlinks starting at the Contents page. Links are provided throughout the Guide to the relevant RDA instructions, to the LC-PCC-PS, and to MARC 21. At the end of the Contents page is a section called 2013 Changes to RDA, that summarises the changes affecting name authority records, with links to the more detailed information within the Guide. From our perspective I would like to draw attention to some of the changes that we first proposed (6JSC/BL/3 and 6JSC/BL/4): Title of the Person has a new sub-element Other Term of Rank, Honour or Office (9.4.1.9, 9.19.1.6), which includes terms indicating academic office, terms of respect for clergy, military ranks, and other terms of honour. It can be used to distinguish an authorised access point if dates of birth/death, periods of activity and occupations are not available. Other Designation Associated with the Person (9.6, 9.19.1.2) now includes terms for Persons Named in Sacred Scriptures or Apocryphal Books (9.6.1.6), the terms Fictitious character, Legendary character, etc. (9.6.1.7), and terms for the type, species or breed of Real Non-human Entities (9.6.1.8). Other Designation Associated with the Person also has a new sub-element Other Designation (9.6.1.9, 9.19.1.7). This element is intentionally broad, and is designed to help remove the few remaining cases where an authorised access point can not be made unique. It therefore encompasses almost any sensible designation, that does not fall within the scope of another element that can be used in an access point. It can be used to distinguish an authorised access point if dates of birth/death, periods of activity, occupations and other terms of rank, honour or office are not available. Other significant changes are covered in the Guide, notably the combination of the two lists of corporate and government bodies entered subordinately, which have been combined into a single set of instructions at 11.2.2.13-11.2.2.28 (6JSC/ALA/18). This revision of the Guide also contains a section on our practice for relationship designators in name authority records, which follows the FAQ - LC/PCC RDA and AACR2 practice for creating NARs for persons who use pseudonyms [1], and recommendations by the Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues [2]. I hope this is useful. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk [1] http:// http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pseud.pdf www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pseud.pdf http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pseud.pdf [2] http://rwww.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/TG%2 0to%20Formulate%20PCC%20NACO%20Policy_Medium%20Priority%20Issues.docx http://rwww.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/TG% 20to%20Formulate%20PCC%20NACO%20Policy_Medium%20Priority%20Issues.docx
[RDA-L] RDA relationship designators in NARs, again
Cross-posting to PCC and RDA_L lists, sorry. Following the recent discussion on this on the PCC List, I wanted to ask for clarity on a couple of points, before contemplating training our cataloguers to begin using these designators. Assuming for the moment the current list of designators in Appendix K, and without anticipating those that may be added as a result of the CC:DA/TF, would the followings usages be considered correct? 1. Body A changes name to Body B 110 Body A 510 successor: Body B 110 Body B 510 predecessor: Body A When we expressed this relationship in terms of earlier names and later names, this allowed for the fact that an earlier name could still be in use. I'm not sure whether this works as well with the terms predecessor and successor, so if in doubt, should we prefer a simple see-also reference with no designator? 2. Body A and Body B merge to form Body C 110 Body A 510 mergee: Body B 510 product of a merger: Body C 110 Body B 510 mergee: Body A 510 product of a merger: Body C 110 Body C 510 predecessor: Body A 510 predecessor: Body B 3. Body A splits to form Body B and Body C 110 Body A 510 product of a split: Body C 110 Body B 510 product of a split: Body C 110 Body C 510 predecessor: Body A 510 predecessor: Body B Someone raised the issue of complex situations where a body may split, merge, or change its name, but leave a body behind still using the earlier name, or where we simply didn't know the nature of the change. If in doubt, should we prefer the simpler successor and predecessor, or even a simple see-also reference with no designator? Many thanks in advance for any advice. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] RDA relationship designators in NARs, again
Sorry, my third example should read: 3. Body A splits to form Body B and Body C 110 Body A 510 product of a split: Body B 510 product of a split: Body C 110 Body B 510 predecessor: Body A 110 Body C 510 predecessor: Body A From: Moore, Richard Sent: 11 June 2013 14:50 To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging (pccl...@listserv.loc.gov); Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access (RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA) Subject: RDA relationship designators in NARs, again Cross-posting to PCC and RDA_L lists, sorry. Following the recent discussion on this on the PCC List, I wanted to ask for clarity on a couple of points, before contemplating training our cataloguers to begin using these designators. Assuming for the moment the current list of designators in Appendix K, and without anticipating those that may be added as a result of the CC:DA/TF, would the followings usages be considered correct? 1. Body A changes name to Body B 110 Body A 510 successor: Body B 110 Body B 510 predecessor: Body A When we expressed this relationship in terms of earlier names and later names, this allowed for the fact that an earlier name could still be in use. I'm not sure whether this works as well with the terms predecessor and successor, so if in doubt, should we prefer a simple see-also reference with no designator? 2. Body A and Body B merge to form Body C 110 Body A 510 mergee: Body B 510 product of a merger: Body C 110 Body B 510 mergee: Body A 510 product of a merger: Body C 110 Body C 510 predecessor: Body A 510 predecessor: Body B 3. Body A splits to form Body B and Body C 110 Body A 510 product of a split: Body C 110 Body B 510 product of a split: Body C 110 Body C 510 predecessor: Body A 510 predecessor: Body B Someone raised the issue of complex situations where a body may split, merge, or change its name, but leave a body behind still using the earlier name, or where we simply didn't know the nature of the change. If in doubt, should we prefer the simpler successor and predecessor, or even a simple see-also reference with no designator? Many thanks in advance for any advice. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference
Greta Wouldn't a relationship designator in an X11 field go in $j? X11 $e is for subordinate unit. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat Sent: 03 May 2013 18:32 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference Early on in the RDA process we consulted with the Library of Congress on this issue and determined that there is no appropriate relationship designation to describe the relationship between a conference and its proceedings. Host institution and Sponsoring body are in the list but are usually not appropriate. One can propose new designations, but we have not been able to think of a brief term in common usage that describes that relationship. So for proceedings, we are generally not using a $e. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 5/3/2013 10:15 AM, Robert Maxwell wrote: A meeting or event is a type of corporate body according to both AACR2 and RDA. If the publication is the proceedings of the meeting/event the conference is considered the creator. I've been using author as the relationship designator in those cases. Corporate bodies (including events) can have other relationships to resources as well (such as issuing body) which might be appropriate depending on the resource. Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Lee, Deborah [deborah@courtauld.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:01 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference Hello, I am struggling to think of the appropriate relationship designator to describe the relationship that the conference has to the book based on that conference. I wondered if anyone had any ideas? (I have considered issuing body, as this is what we have used for works which have emanated from a (non-event-based) corporate body. However, I cannot reconcile how an event can issue something!) I am probably missing something extremely obvious, so if anyone had any suggestions or thoughts I would be extremely grateful. Best wishes, Debbie Deborah Lee Senior cataloguer Book Library Courtauld Institute of Art Somerset House Strand London WC2R 0RN Telephone: 020 7848 2905 Email: deborah@courtauld.ac.uk Now on at The Courtauld Gallery: Becoming Picasso: Paris 1901 14 February - 27 May 2013 The Courtauld Institute of Art is a company limited by guarantee (registered in England and Wales, number 04464432) and an exempt charity. SCT Enterprises Limited is a limited company (registered in England and Wales, number 3137515). Their registered offices are at Somerset House, Strand, London WC2R 0RN. The sale of items related to The Courtauld Gallery and its collections is managed by SCT Enterprises Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Courtauld Institute of Art. This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorised dissemination or copying of this e-mail or its attachments and any reliance on or use or disclosure of any information contained in them is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify us by return of e-mail [or by telephone +44 (0) 20 7848 1273] and then delete it from your system. This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
Re: [RDA-L] Two questions
Two points of interest: The new field 386 is not specified for personal NARs, only for titles and name-titles. This is mainly because it conveys information already conveyed by controlled vocabulary in 374. And soon in 368: When the changes to RDA that JSC agreed in November 2012 appear in RDA (July I believe) it will be possible to record nationality as an Other designation in 368 |c. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: 25 April 2013 23:38 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Two questions Dear collective wisdom, I and another cataloger here at CUNY Central Office have two questions regarding creating personal name authority records using RDA: 1. The more theoretical question. In fields 372 and 374 (field of activity and occupation), the instructions in RDA give very generic phrases, such as Theater, Literature, Poets, etc. However, if the information stored in these fields is being considered (as has been suggested in various posts on various lists) for use not only in identification, but also for searching, would it not be better to have more specific information, such as Dominican literature and Dominican authors (we are working on a project involving these)? I don't see any prohibition in this regard, but no one seems to do this. Language of the person's works is already represented in field 377. Nationality terms may be coming in the future in the newly approved 386 field for group characteristics (see http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2013/2013-06.html). 2. DCM Z1 says that it is preferable to take the terms in these fields from LCSH. However, in the case of authors, the term Writer is used, rather than Authors (Writer being the term used in RDA). Which is preferable? The examples in RDA are not prescriptive, they are just illustrative, although they are all in the singular form because they illustrate terms that could be added to an access point, which would be in the singular. While Authors is the LCSH form, another controlled vocabulary might use Writers. LCSH is not prescribed as the sole source of these terms. The DCM Z1 simply says to prefer a controlled vocabular such as LCSH or MeSH. ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Authority Records -- See From
Miranda Please see here in the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data: http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/adtracing.html Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Miranda Nero Sent: 21 February 2013 15:25 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Authority Records -- See From Hi all, I've been noticing a $wn in the see-from fields in RDA authority records, and I'm not sure what the rest of the codes mean (nea, nna, etc..) I've found the explanation of what the subfield means, but I can't seem to find a list of what the codes in the subfield mean. Could anyone direct me to a list or set of guidelines for those codes? Thanks so much! Miranda ___ Miranda Nero OSL Cataloger mn...@oslri.net 401-738-2200 x108 Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too hard to read. -Groucho Marx
Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive?
Martin The BL adopted RDA for authority records last year, and is currently training its cataloguers in RDA for full implementation in March this year. Personally I'd go for training in RDA now rather than AACR2, if you can. Cheers Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 22 January 2013 10:26 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive? Hi all We're going through a 'library review' here at the University of Liverpool, which will include a substantial change in responsibilities, including a switch from predominantly professional staff cataloguing to nonprofessional staff, at least for copy cataloguing. At the moment, the plan is to train everyone in AACR2, because RDA never really seems to actually arrive. It officially arrived 2-3 years ago, yet the cataloguing world and it's records barely appeared to register it - first there was the lengthy wait for LoC, NLM the BL and all the other big libraries to accept it, then the revision, and then there were proclamations of when they were to be adopted... this year - April, I think? Is this genuinely going to be the case? Are there going to be further delays?? I don't want to push for the implementation of RDA if we're still predominantly going to get AACR2 records for another 3 years! Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Martin There is a revision process for RDA: http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC. That's the way RDA gets revised. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well, there does seem to be a large amount of discontent, if not widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process?? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions either ... From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Hi Richard Well, can't help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I'll go for it. And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at the 11th hour Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Martin There is a revision process for RDA: http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC. That's the way RDA gets revised. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well, there does seem to be a large amount of discontent, if not widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process?? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Panizzi's rules, then? ;-) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 11:48 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well no - AACR2 has spent about 10 years being revised, ending up with something I know I'm not especially happy with, and I'm under the general impression has a lukewarm reception at the best of times... so maybe that's part of the problem! Martin From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 24 October 2012 11:35 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions either ... From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Hi Richard Well, can't help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I'll go for it. And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at the 11th hour Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Martin There is a revision process for RDA: http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC. That's the way RDA gets revised. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well, there does seem to be a large amount of discontent, if not widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process?? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
Re: [RDA-L] 370 Russia, Federation ?
John I was just reading up this thread and waiting for someone to point that out. Russia (Federation) and Russia, Federation are both wrong, in authority 370 in LC/NAF. This follows the LCPS for 11.3.1 (Do not include the type of jurisdiction), which can also be applied to 9.8.1.3, 9.9.1.3 and 9.10.1.3. RDA gets a little circular here, since all of the place elements in chapters 9, 10, 11 refer to chapter 16, which in turn mentions all those elements at 16.0: The names of places are also used as additions to titles of works (see 6.5), as additions to the names of corporate bodies to distinguish between bodies with the same name (see 11.13.1.3), as additions to conference names (see 11.13.1.8), and in recording places associated with a person (see 9.8-9.11), family (see 10.5), or corporate body (see 11.3). Chapter 16 then refers you back to Chapter 11, where the LCPS is found. LC have confirmed that their intention was also to omit the other designations covered by 11.7.1.6, i.e. Korea, rather than Korea (South). In this respect the LCRI needs tweaking. I do agree with others that the requirement to modify the LC/NAF form of name in any way when entering it in 370 is something we should lose. The same should apply to using it as a qualifier in another access point. The App. B11 abbreviations ought to go the same way. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: 12 October 2012 20:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 370 Russia, Federation ? LC-PCC PS for 11.3.1.3 says do not include the type of jurisdiction. DCM Z1 for field 370 says make the same adjustments as when using the place name as a parenthetical qualifier to names. AACR2 24.4C1 says Do not include the additions to names of places prescribed in 24.6 when the names of these places are used to indicate the location of corporate bodies. So the form in field 370 should be Russia. All of which begs the question of whether we really need separate access points for the different periods of Russian history. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
Re: [RDA-L] 370 Russia, Federation ?
John I was just reading up this thread and waiting for someone to point that out. Russia (Federation) and Russia, Federation are both wrong, in authority 370 in LC/NAF. This follows the LCPS for 11.3.1 (Do not include the type of jurisdiction), which can also be applied to 9.8.1.3, 9.9.1.3 and 9.10.1.3. RDA gets a little circular here, since all of the place elements in chapters 9, 10, 11 refer to chapter 16, which in turn mentions all those elements at 16.0: The names of places are also used as additions to titles of works (see 6.5), as additions to the names of corporate bodies to distinguish between bodies with the same name (see 11.13.1.3), as additions to conference names (see 11.13.1.8), and in recording places associated with a person (see 9.8-9.11), family (see 10.5), or corporate body (see 11.3). Chapter 16 then refers you back to Chapter 11, where the LCPS is found. LC have confirmed that their intention was also to omit the other designations covered by 11.7.1.6, i.e. Korea, rather than Korea (South). In this respect the LCRI needs tweaking. I do agree with others that the requirement to modify the LC/NAF form of name in any way when entering it in 370 is something we should lose. The same should apply to using it as a qualifier in another access point. The App. B11 abbreviations ought to go the same way. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: 12 October 2012 20:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 370 Russia, Federation ? LC-PCC PS for 11.3.1.3 says do not include the type of jurisdiction. DCM Z1 for field 370 says make the same adjustments as when using the place name as a parenthetical qualifier to names. AACR2 24.4C1 says Do not include the additions to names of places prescribed in 24.6 when the names of these places are used to indicate the location of corporate bodies. So the form in field 370 should be Russia. All of which begs the question of whether we really need separate access points for the different periods of Russian history. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
Re: [RDA-L] Consistency and 370 field
Daniel I think you're right. But I'm not hugely confident that this is anything other than an omission, that could perhaps be rectified by a fast-track proposal to change RDA. Concerning $2 naf, DCM:Z1 says in the notes on 370: Use the established form of the geographic place name as found in the LC/NAF, with the same adjustments as when using the place name as a parenthetical qualifier to names [...] If the place is not a jurisdiction, indicate the source of the form of place in subfield $2. That is, there is no instruction to indicate naf in 370 $2 if the place is a jurisdiction. Interestingly, the guidelines in Z1 makes no mention of the B.11 abbreviations, but I think that's an omission in the guidelines. So maybe using $2 naf is also an omission. However, we (the BL) haven't been using it in 370. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Paradis Daniel Sent: 25 September 2012 17:33 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Consistency and 370 field Hi Adam, In a message posted to RDA-L more than two weeks ago, you wrote: Even more strangely, at least one library is inputting the established forms of states, provinces, countries and adding a $2 naf even though RDA instructions in all of the instructions on recording these elements (e.g. 9.8.1.3, 9.9.1.3, 9.10.1.3, 9.11.1.3, 11.3.1.3, etc.) say to Abbreviate the names of countries, states, provinces, territories, etc., as instructed in Appendix B (B.11), as applicable. Isn't Place of Origin of the Work (370, subfield $g) an exception to the requirement of systematically using Appendix B abbreviations? 6.5.1.3 says: Record the place of origin of the work in the form prescribed in chapter 16. According to chapter 16, the name of a state, province, etc., would not be abbreviated unless it is used as a qualifier. Regards, Daniel Paradis Bibliothécaire Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721 Télécopieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.ca -Message d'origine- De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Adam L. Schiff Envoyé : 22 septembre 2012 17:39 À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : [RDA-L] Consistency and 370 field I agree that it's a forlorn hope that everyone will be completely consistent, but it's good that everyone seems to agree that the data element is useful to record. Regards Richard Speaking of consistency, I am noticing lots of records input by many different libraries where the place name abbreviations from Appendix B.11 have not been followed when recording a location in the 370 field. I have seen things like: United States Connecticut Rhode Island New York New Zealand Disbury, Alberta Wellington, New Zealand Western Australia Saskatchewan, Canada [doubly incorrect, since Canada shouldn't be included] Alberta, Canada [just like the one above, both input by Uk] Even more strangely, at least one library is inputting the established forms of states, provinces, countries and adding a $2 naf even though RDA instructions in all of the instructions on recording these elements (e.g. 9.8.1.3, 9.9.1.3, 9.10.1.3, 9.11.1.3, 11.3.1.3, etc.) say to Abbreviate the names of countries, states, provinces, territories, etc., as instructed in Appendix B (B.11), as applicable. It's pretty easy to search the authority file in OCLC for incorrectly entered places, since you can search for example for New Zealand in the Entity Attributes index and then find the ones in 370 that are wrong. (And I fixed that country last night.) It would also sure be nice if OCLC searching allowed us to do more specific targeted searches in specific fields or elements, so you don't have to wade through records that have the words New Zealand in field 371 or 373 for example. Anyway, it would be really good to remind catalogers to use the abbreviations in B.11, even when recording just a state, province, or country. Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] Consistency and 370 field
John I agree, it is strange. The only hearsay explanation I have received, is that JSC thought at one point that if place names were recorded in 370 in qualifier form, then a clever system might be able to flip them into a corporate access point if the need arose for disambiguation. I'm not convinced by that as (a) most systems can't and (b) if a system were that clever it could make the appropriate conversion anyway. In this day and age, I see no need to modify an authorised place name when it is given in 370, nor indeed in the access point, apart from the possible desirability of replaing parentheses with a comma in the access point to avoid nested parentheses. Maybe that's a future RDA change proposal. _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: 24 September 2012 17:09 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Consistency and 370 field This is one of the stranger provisions in RDA. In some areas some of us are intent on using authorized access points in as many elements as possible, even where it is not necessary, such as affiliation, while here we are instructed to use abbreviations with the apparent intent to record places in the form they would have in an addition to an access point, though this is not stated explicitly. When would a place name be used in an access point for a person? Does this use of abbreviations help us approach a future world of linked data? If abbreviations are desired in an access point, shouldn't that instruction come at the point the access point is constructed, e.g. 11.13.1.3, not when the place is recorded? A person completing a MARC record while looking only at the MARC format documentation will not be aware of which RDA rules apply to which subfield and what peculiarities they contain, spread across chapters 9, 11, and 16, at least. I'm not saying the MARC format should contain cataloging rules; in fact, there's far too much of that already. But pointers to the appropriate content rules would not be out of place. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
Re: [RDA-L] Authority 046 and periods of activity
John Thanks for this. In RDA a period of activity can also be a single date; we've tended to use, for example 046 $s 18 for someone known to have become active in the 19th century, but have not closed this with $t 18 unless certain that the person also ceased to be active in the 19th century. If we know they've continued into the 20th century we'd put 046 $s 18 $t 19. I agree that it's a forlorn hope that everyone will be conmpletely consistent, but it's good that everyone seems to agree that the data element is useful to record. Regards Richard From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on behalf of John Hostage Sent: Thu 20/09/2012 22:51 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Authority 046 and periods of activity The default for 046 is an ISO 8601 date (http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad046.html), so it apparently doesn't have to be specified in subfield $2, but there is a code (iso8601) defined in the source codes (http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/date-time.html) that could be used in subfield $2. Strictly speaking, a period of activity is a range of dates, called a time interval in ISO 8601. In that standard, a time interval is represented by two dates separated by a solidus, i.e. a slash. When we say someone was active in the 19th century, we don't usually mean from the first day of the century to the last day of the century, but for some period of time with an undetermined or unspecified beginning and undetermined or unspecified ending in that century. That could be represented in MARC as 046 $s 18 $t 18 My understanding of EDTF is that 'u' is used for an unspecified value that may be supplied later, while 'x' is used when there is no expectation that the value will be supplied. '18xx' has century precision (http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html#maskedprecision). My understanding of ISO 8601 is that an expanded representation is used for years with more than 4 digits (sec. 2.3.8 and 4.1.2.4) so a construction like '+0018' would not be used for our purposes. So another representation in MARC might be 046 $s 18xx $t 18xx $2 edtf We probably can't expect these definitions to be applied consistently by thousands of catalogers spread around the world. J -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Amanda Xu Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 02:36 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Authority 046 and periods of activity According to newly proposed LC standards that extends ISO 8601 for date and time encoding[1], we may add unspecified character 'u, e.g. 18uu, which stands for some unspecified year in the 1800s. If so, your example 2 has to be optionally changed from: 046 $s 18 = active 19th century to: 046 ##$s18uu $2edtf and $2edft indicates the source of date and time encoding scheme is from Extended Date/Time Format. Another option is to use ISO 8601:2004[E] for reduced accuracy of date time [2], we may add +0018 to expand the definition of 19th century. If so, the same example can be optionally represented as: 046 ##$s+0018$2ISO 8601:2004(E) Notes: 1. LC Extended Date/Time Format (EDTF) 1.0 [Draft Submission]. Available from: http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html#unspecified http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html#unspecified 2. ISO 8601:2004(E). p. 13. Available from http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf
Re: [RDA-L] Authority 046 and periods of activity
Thank you Amanda. What we've tended to do at the BL is only to use edtf for things that ISO 8601 can't express, such as approximate and uncertain dates. As 4.1.2.3 c) in the ISO allows YY for a specific century, we haven't used edtf for this, though the edtf formulation is certainly correct; as of course is the expanded representation in 4.1.2.4 of the ISO, to which you refer. But we've tried to keep it simple. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Amanda Xu Sent: 20 September 2012 07:36 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Authority 046 and periods of activity According to newly proposed LC standards that extends ISO 8601 for date and time encoding[1], we may add unspecified character 'u, e.g. 18uu, which stands for some unspecified year in the 1800s. If so, your example 2 has to be optionally changed from: 046 $s 18 = active 19th century to: 046 ##$s18uu $2edtf and $2edft indicates the source of date and time encoding scheme is from Extended Date/Time Format. Another option is to use ISO 8601:2004[E] for reduced accuracy of date time [2], we may add +0018 to expand the definition of 19th century. If so, the same example can be optionally represented as: 046 ##$s+0018$2ISO 8601:2004(E) Notes: 1. LC Extended Date/Time Format (EDTF) 1.0 [Draft Submission]. Available from: http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html#unspecified 2. ISO 8601:2004(E). p. 13. Available from http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Peter Schouten pschou...@ingressus.nl wrote: Since it supports both the FRAD user tasks Identify and Contextualise, this makes perfect sense to me, and you are correct in saying that recording optional useful information is a separate issue from creating access points. Regards, Peter Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Moore, Richard [richard.mo...@bl.uk] Verzonden: woensdag 19 september 2012 11:10 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: [RDA-L] Authority 046 and periods of activity I'm interested in the opinions of other people who are creating NACO authority records in RDA, on the use of the 046 field in personal NARs. We always record known dates of birth and death in 046, as specifically as they are known. We've also taken the view that, if dates of birth and death are not known, it is useful to record a person's period of activity, even if this is only as specific as the century. For example: 046 $s 1740 $t 1790 = active 1740-1790 046 $s 18 = active 19th century The above are formulated to ISO 8601, which MAR21 says should be used in this field. We do this whether or not the period of activity is included in the authorised access point, which is a separate issue. We think that it will always be useful to record a person's period of activity in machine-readable form. Clearly this can't be regarded as compulsory, as Period of Activity of the Person is not a core element when not needed to distinguish between persons. But I'd be interested to know whether people think this is a good idea, or a bad idea, and why. This is a practical question of RDA application, so I'm not hugely interested in the moral and aesthetic aspects ;-) Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 tel:%2B44%20%280%291937%20546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -- Amanda Xu Apprentice to Information Artistry IT Librarian for Collection Management Still In Progress P.O. Box 650295 Fresh Meadows, NY 11365 axu...@gmail.com (personal email)
[RDA-L] Authority 046 and periods of activity
I'm interested in the opinions of other people who are creating NACO authority records in RDA, on the use of the 046 field in personal NARs. We always record known dates of birth and death in 046, as specifically as they are known. We've also taken the view that, if dates of birth and death are not known, it is useful to record a person's period of activity, even if this is only as specific as the century. For example: 046 $s 1740 $t 1790 = active 1740-1790 046 $s 18 = active 19th century The above are formulated to ISO 8601, which MAR21 says should be used in this field. We do this whether or not the period of activity is included in the authorised access point, which is a separate issue. We think that it will always be useful to record a person's period of activity in machine-readable form. Clearly this can't be regarded as compulsory, as Period of Activity of the Person is not a core element when not needed to distinguish between persons. But I'd be interested to know whether people think this is a good idea, or a bad idea, and why. This is a practical question of RDA application, so I'm not hugely interested in the moral and aesthetic aspects ;-) Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Location of Conference and MARC Authority 370 (fwd)
RDA and MARC always seem to be slightly out of step with each other, I think this is part of the issue. MARC is ambiguous in that it has a specific subfield for related countries ($c), but the definition of $f allows associated places at any level. $f purports to be for Other or additional places, but $c is repeatable anyway. These broad definitions give us more than one possible way to apply them, but I think our actual usage needs to be more focussed. In the interests of collocation at the country level, we've preferred to use $c for all associated places that are countries, $f for other associated places that aren't, and $e for places where people, bodies and conferences are located. That makes sense to me, and should also for a machine. We all know that RDA wasn't written with MARC in mind, and sometimes the mappings are strained. Sometimes the text of RDA too needs a bit of interpretation. The only kinds of place described in detail in 11.3 are the locations of conferences and of headquarters; it's only because they are preceded in 11.3.1.1 by e.g. that we infer other kinds of related places and countries at all. Though I think we're right to infer them, and to record them. And if we do, an associated country is an associated country, whatever the entity, and ought always to go in the same subfield ($c). Likewise a specific location of any kind ought always to go in $e. Instructions on places are structured differently in Chapter 9 and Chapter 11, which is an unfortunate inheritance from FRAD, where associated places are given inconsistently for persons and for corporate bodies. FRAD 4.3, Attributes of a Corporate Body, lumps them all together as Place associated with the corporate body, which includes the things given as e.g. in RDA 11.3.1.1, whereas FRAD 4.1, Attributes of a Person, lists Place of birth, Place of death, Country and Place of residence, separately and exclusively. I can't see any particular reason why both sections could not have been structured in the same way. FRAD is also the reson why we don't, technically, have a place in RDA for Other place associated with the person (370 $f), and is why we made the proposal 6JSC/BL/6 at http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html (we are inclined to accept LC's suggested revsion of this proposal, in their response). Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: 10 September 2012 23:06 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Location of Conference and MARC Authority 370 (fwd) Adam Schiff wrote: It does concern me that sometimes an associated place will go in $e and other times in $f. Without clear definitions of these subfields, I don't see how a machine would know how to create an access point on the fly for display. But perhaps that isn't a real future goal of these data, since maybe some day we won't need access points at all. The problem now as I see it is that some things in 370 $e are additions to the preferred name to distinguish that name from others with the same name, while in other cases what is in 370 $e would be the location of the conference while the place needed to distinguish the name from another would be in $f. It's an inconsistent use of the same subfield. It seems there should really be a separate subfield in 370 for location of the conference (or maybe it could be more general, like location of an event?). When constructing headings, that element is handled very differently than other associated places. It goes into subfield $c of the heading field, whereas other associated places (if used in the heading) go into subfield $a of the heading. All that being said, according to the LC workshop slideshow, Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) (3rd : 1992 : Tallahassee, Fla.) would have the following relevant tags: 111 2# $a Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) $n (3rd : $d 1992 : $c Tallahassee, Fla.) 370 ## $e Tallahassee, Fla. $f Fla. A record for the series of conferences would have: 111 2# $a Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) 370 ## $f Fla. By the way, while MARC defines 370 $c as Associated country - A country with which the person, corporate body, family, or work is identified, I don't see any justification *in RDA* for using 370 $c in a record for a corporate body or family. There is an element country associated with the person defined in 9.10.1.1, and it is only at the country level. But there is no associated country element defined for corporate bodies or families that I can see; there are associated PLACES that can be at any level of
Re: [RDA-L] Location of Conference and MARC Authority 370 (fwd)
Adam We would put the specific location of the conference in $e, and the broader places (Ariz. And Fla.)in your examples in $f, as other associated places. The mapping in the Toolkit of 11.3.2 to 370 subfield $f is wrong. I think a lot of these mappings were devised before anyone had a chance to create many authority records in practice. What LC and the BL arrived at is described in the training materials here: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_conferences.ppt - Record the location of a conference in 370 $e - Record a country that is associated with a conference, in 370 $c - Record any other place that is associated with a conference, in 370 $f The PCC document at: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/RDA%20in%20NARs-SA Rs_PCC.pdf has not been revised to take this on board, but should be. $e in all contexts (place of residence of a person, location of headquarters of a corporate body, and location of conference) is best used for as specific a local place as is known, and any broader places associated with the entity should be recorded in $f, or in $c if a country. RDA is written very broadly, in that it allows any of these elements to be a town, city, province, state, and/or country, but in practice the different levels have fallen naturally into those particular subfields. As you say, without making these distinctions, machines will be confused. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: 10 September 2012 05:58 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Location of Conference and MARC Authority 370 (fwd) Well that raises another problem that I see if both associated place and location of conference are to be recorded in the same subfield in 370. When you have a conference that includes both elements, it is not clear which element is which. For example, when two different unrelated conference have the same name, one of the possible additions is associated place, as illustrated by the examples in 11.13.1.3: Governors Conference on Aging (Ariz.) Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) Now when you have a specific instance of one of these conferences, such as the example at 11.13.1.8: Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) (3rd : 1992 : Tallahassee, Fla.) both Fla. and Tallahassee, Fla. would have to be recorded in 370 $e: 111 2# $a Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) $n (3rd : $d 1992 : $c Tallahassee, Fla.) 370 ## $e Fla. $e Tallahassee, Fla. Therefore, it's not clear at all from the coding in 370 which element is which and what goes where. If you were trying to assemble an access point on the fly, the machine couldn't do it. In situations where a conference was held in two or more location, each location would be recorded in 370 $e, as in: 111 2# $a Symposium on Breeding and Machine Harvesting of Rubus and Ribes $d (1976 : $c East Malling, England; Dundee, Scotland) 370 ## $e East Malling, England $e Dundee, Scotland How is a machine supposed to be able to tell the difference between the first example with two subfield $e's and the second? ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Sun, 9 Sep 2012, Hideyuki Morimoto wrote: JSC document entitled Examples of full RDA records (JSC). Authority records (http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/examples_of_rda_authority _records_0.pdf) carries on p. 38 the example of the 21st Olympic Winter Games: 111 2# $a Olympic Winter Games $n (21st : $d 2010 : $c Vancouver, B.C.) 370 ## $c Canada $e Vancouver, B.C. with Vancouver, B.C. entered under 370-$e rather than 370-$f. PCC document entitled MARC 21 encoding to accommodate new RDA elements 046 and 3XX in NARs and SARs (rev., May 2012) (http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/RDA%20in%20NARs-S ARs_PCC.pdf) recommends on p. 2: 370: $e Location of conference (place of residence/ headquarters): 11.3.2 $f Location of conference (other associated place): 11.3.2 LC's training material RDA special topics. Conferences : guidelines for best practice prepared by Ms. Crist?n (update, July 2012) (http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_conferences.ppt) also carries on slide 41: - Record the location of a conference in 370 $e - Record a country that is associated with
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
I'm sorry, typo there - there is a school of thought that *$e* should precede $c. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 02 August 2012 07:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields For *authority* records, LC are accepting any order for the moment. We've been putting $e at the end, but any $d after that. There seems to be a school of thought that $d should precede $c. _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Cohen Sent: 01 August 2012 22:48 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields Is there a prescribed order to the subfields in 040? I see some RDA records with $e after $a [e.g. OCLC #316058624] and some with $e between $b and $c [e.g. OCLC #699487827] and some with the subfields in alpha order [e.g. OCLC #780483684]. ??? -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library's new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Conference headings created by BL
Thanks Bob for answering this while the UK slept! The considerations in choosing between an acronymic and a formally spelled-out form of conference (or other corporate name) are broadly similar in RDA as in AACR2. RDA 11.2.2.5 says: If variant forms of the name are found in resources associated with the body, choose the name as it appears in the preferred sources of information (see 2.2.2) as the preferred name, as opposed to forms found elsewhere in the resources. So if the preferred source (usually the title page) has WWIC 2012, and the spelled out form appears elsewhere, then the acronymic form is the preferred name. That's not different from AACR2. Where RDA practice differs is in the following: RDA 11.2.2.11 says: Omit from the name of a conference, congress, meeting, exhibition, fair, festival, etc. [...] indications of its number, or year or years of convocation, etc. AACR2 24.7A1 said the same (except that it also required the omission of frequency), but LCRI 24.7A allowed an exception for acronyms: If the name of a conference consists of a phrase that combines an acronym or an initialism with the abbreviated or full form of the year, retain the year as part of the name. So under AACR2 we could have WWIC 2012 as the name. There is no equivalent of LCRI 24.7A in RDA or the LCPS. We can't retain the year of convocation. Therefore, from WWIC 2012 we omit the year, and are left with WWIC. As Bob says below, RDA 11.13.1.2 and the LCPS for 11.7.1.4 instruct us to qualify it with an Other designation, and the most suitable designation would seem to be Conference. We've used Conference in these access points, regardless of whether a meeting calls itself a Conference, Colloquium, Symposium, etc., in the interests of consistency and collocation. Bearing in mind also that LCRI 21.1.B1 no longer applies, so a phrase no longer has to contain a word that connotes a meeting, in order to be considered named. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary Charles Sent: 23 July 2012 20:28 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Conference headings created by BL Bob, Thanks! I hope we will have some examples of such headings since this is a pretty major change from AACR2/NACO practice. Mary Charles -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Conference headings created by BL RDA 11.7 says the Other Designation Associated with the Corporate Body element is core for a body with a name that does not convey the idea of a corporate body. This element, in turn, becomes part of the authorized access point (as a qualifier) under 11.13.1.2. The LCPS to 11.7.1.4 says that, for LC at least, If the name chosen for the authorized access point for a corporate body is an initialism or acronym written in all capital letters (with or without periods between them), add a qualifier to the name. In other words, for LC, a body with a preferred name that consists of an initialism or acronym written in all capital letters is a body with a name that does not convey the idea of a corporate body. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary Charles Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 9:16 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Conference headings created by BL Richard, I am seeing lots of BL created RDA conference headings show up for individual conferences, many using initials. The biggest difference I see is the word (Conference) added to the initials. Example: 111: 2|aWWIC (Conference)|n(10th :|d2012 :|cThera Island, Greece) I like it since it seems to be more in-line with serial type cataloging treatment than the AACR2 heading: WWIC 2012|d(2012 :|cThera Island, Greece) Can you (or anyone else) point me to documentation about this? I don't remember seeing anything that would have caused me to create the preferred heading this way. Mary Charles Lasater Vanderbilt
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Conference headings created by BL
Gene Yes, freed from the LCRIs we have created a glorious proliferation of variant access points. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: 23 July 2012 17:21 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Conference headings created by BL I would hope that if the initialism is spelled out somewhere, that, at least, a xref is created, if not the main entry for the body. I don't think using initialisms for corporate bodies is going to help the patron. After all, sir, Just waht is the WWIC, the patron might ask. On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Lasater, Mary Charles mary.c.lasa...@vanderbilt.edu wrote: Richard, I am seeing lots of BL created RDA conference headings show up for individual conferences, many using initials. The biggest difference I see is the word (Conference) added to the initials. Example: 111: 2|aWWIC (Conference)|n(10th :|d2012 :|cThera Island, Greece) I like it since it seems to be more in-line with serial type cataloging treatment than the AACR2 heading: WWIC 2012|d(2012 :|cThera Island, Greece) Can you (or anyone else) point me to documentation about this? I don't remember seeing anything that would have caused me to create the preferred heading this way. Mary Charles Lasater Vanderbilt -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only. ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
I think CE is more usually taken as Common Era, rather than Christian Era. Christian Era would, I agree, defeat the object. The Wikipedia article on the abbreviations has the following links to published usage: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=BC,BCEyear_start=1800year_e nd=2008corpus=0smoothing=3 http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=century+AD,century+CEyear_st art=1800year_end=2008corpus=0smoothing=3 Which indicate that BC and AD still predominate. However, quite why RDA allows AD to persist as a Latin abbreviation when it's been so retentive about elminating fl. and ca. is beyond me. They are all abbreviations in contemporary international use, but as has been said, this can in theory all be dealt with by altering displays. _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of David Giglio Sent: 22 July 2012 03:49 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Wouldn't the RDA version of the non-Christian-centric terminology have to be spelled out as Christian Era or Before the Christian Era ? I fail to see how these are any less Christian-centric, since they explicitly mention it. Dave Giglio Head of Technical Services Dover Public Library Dover, Delaware 302-736-7031 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Buzz Haughton [bongob...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 2:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA All: I catalog as a volunteer at the Sosnick Library, Temple B'nai Israel in Sacramento, CA. I confess to some puzzlement as to why RDA has not apparently chosen to update dates to non-Christian-centric terminology, e.g. BC/AD -- BCE/CE. These terms have been in common usage now for many years (at least thirty, judging by what I have been able to find). Shouldn't RDA be moving into the twenty-first century when it comes to all aspects of cataloging? Buzz Haughton 1861 Pebblewood Dr Sacramento CA 95833 USA (916) 468-9027 bongob...@gmail.commailto:bongob...@gmail.com ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record enough as an abbreviation? ;-) Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some name-titles. The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those limitations. So in theory you could break a conflict with active 1989 when a sole publication was known, though a qualifier for the person's occupation would almost always be more helpful. Which is why the LCPS for 9.19.1.1 advises the use of judgement in selecting the best qualifier, rather than rigidly following the RDA order of precedence in 9.19.14-9.19.1.6. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 12:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record enough as an abbreviation? ;-) Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library's new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
The thing with occupations, is that while you can only add one to an access point to make it unique (and the far-sighted among us regard access points as ephemeral, apparently), you can record as many as you like as discrete data elements in the 374 MARC field. So RDA authority records become much more useful as devices for machines to identify and match authors across different databases, even if you are blessed with a discovery layer that renders them invisible to users. Does the University of Liverpool not use the LC/NAF? Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 15:14 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Strange, then... I've been labouring under the illusion we were dissenters all this time, whereas actually we were entirely conformist! Well, I'm not sure what we'll go for in the end - although I think locally we'll probably prefer fl./flourished/active over adding occupations, not least because of the issue of polymathy, but these things are yet to be deterimined Cheers! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 13:42 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some name-titles. The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those limitations. So in theory you could break a conflict with active 1989 when a sole publication was known, though a qualifier for the person's occupation would almost always be more helpful. Which is why the LCPS for 9.19.1.1 advises the use of judgement in selecting the best qualifier, rather than rigidly following the RDA order of precedence in 9.19.14-9.19.1.6. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 12:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Martin The BL has used LC/NAF in current cataloguing for a number of years, but we have large numbers of legacy bibliographic records containing headings from our own former national authority file, and others created to standards that preceded that (for example, successive iterations of Panizzi's rules). Very many of these headings have been aligned to NACO, but a large number have not. Yet. We are doing an increasing amount of name authority record creation in RDA, for NACO, and should be doing all of it in RDA by the end of this year. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 15:56 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Hi Richard Nope! Well not uniformly, not by a long chalk. We use fairly nonstandard headings (although not as nonstandard as I thought, apparently), and internally maintained authorities, although bulk loads of ebooks mean we go for NAF headings where consistency can be maintained with our own standards where possible. I guess we may go more or less standard according to how fully we apply RDA The BL isn't entirely NACO though, is it? There always seem to be inconsistencies between the BL, LoC and OCLC anyway, as far as I can tell, but maybe I've not checked up on it so much recently. Cheers! Martin ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] NLM policy on undifferentiated personal names
Dear Diane I would be interested in comparing notes with you on access points that you come across, which can not be differentiated using RDA. While remaining optimistic, we have certainly found cases within existing undifferentiated records that will be problematic, and are considering some targetted change proposals to RDA, as a result. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Boehr, Diane (NIH/NLM) [E] Sent: 08 May 2012 21:48 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] NLM policy on undifferentiated personal names NLM has decided to follow the British Library's lead and try to avoid creating any further undifferentiated NARs for NACO, nor to add any further identities to existing NARs. If using RDA qualifiers such as period of activity or profession will allow the name to be differentiated, then these elements will be added to the heading and headings will be coded RDA. Catalogers who are not yet trained in RDA will work with or pass the work onto NLM catalogers who participated in the RDA test. While NLM is not as optimistic as the BL that undifferentiated records can be avoided completely, NLM believes that minimizing the number of undifferentiated headings in the national authority file will be a benefit to the cataloging community. Diane Boehr Head of Cataloging National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike, MS3823 Bethesda, MD 20894 301-435-7059 (voice) 301-402-1211 (fax) boe...@mail.nlm.nih.gov ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF
Adam Except that LCSH occupation/profession headings are in the plural, while RDA terms would be in the singular. I'm not at all sure that you could singularize an LCSH heading and still code the subfield $2 of the 374 field for LCSH. What do others think about this? I think that if we are to use LCSH terms for occupations in 374, we should use them as they appear in LCSH: that is, in the plural. It's the only approach that makes sense to me if we are thinking in terms of linked data. This is the advice I've given to our group of cataloguers who are creating RDA authorities: LCSH terms for classes of persons are given in the plural. Use LCSH terms concisely and only include subdivisions when necessary. Subdivisions should be indicated with a double dash. _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] List of relator terms
Will Relationship designators currently authorised are in Appendices I, J and K in the RDA Toolkit. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Will Evans Sent: 25 April 2012 15:03 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] List of relator terms Could someone point me to a list of relator terms that will be authorized under RDA. Thanks in advance. Best, Will WW Will Evans Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian Library of the Boston Athenaeum 10 1/2 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Tel: 617-227-0270 ext. 224 Fax: 617-227-5266 www.bostonathenaeum.org http://www.bostonathenaeum.org/ WW
Re: [RDA-L] List of relator terms
Agreed, although the MARC relator terms supplement Appendix I only, being designators that, in the terminology of RDA, specify a relationship between a resource and a person, family, or corporate body associated with that resource. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: 25 April 2012 15:32 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] List of relator terms The relationship designators in RDA Appendices I-L may all be used, of course, but those lists are not exclusive. Terms from other lists may be used (e.g. RDA 29.5.1.3 says If none of the terms listed in appendix K is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term designating the nature of the relationship as concisely as possible). A good other source of terms is the MARC relator terms list at http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html. These terms may be used in RDA records if the terms in the RDA appendices are not appropriate or sufficiently specific. Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Will Evans Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 8:03 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] List of relator terms Could someone point me to a list of relator terms that will be authorized under RDA. Thanks in advance. Best, Will WW Will Evans Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian Library of the Boston Athenaeum 10 1/2 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Tel: 617-227-0270 ext. 224 Fax: 617-227-5266 www.bostonathenaeum.org http://www.bostonathenaeum.org/ WW
Re: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for community discussion
After considering the recent discussion on the PCC list of the discussion paper The Future of Undifferentiated Personal Name Authority Records and Other Implications for PCC Authority Work, the BL has decided not to create any further undifferentiated NARs for NACO, nor to add any further identities to existing NARs. Instead, as part of our RDA training, we have asked our cataloguers to create new NARs for persons who would otherwise be added to undifferentiated records, following RDA, using RDA qualifers for Profession or occupation when appropriate. Cataloguers not yet trained in RDA will pass the work to cataloguers who are. Effectively we've set ourselves a challenge, to see if the expanded scope for qualifying access points that RDA offers can allow us to avoid undifferentiated records altogether. The BL creates and amends more than 35,000 NACO records each year, so hopefully this will be a significant test. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated Personal Names
Adam We shared your concern at the possible effect of removing Field of Activity as a potential qualifier, on our ability to avoid undifferentiated records. We're putting forward a proposal to JSC, to amend the RDA definition of Profession or occupation from A profession or occupation in which a person works or has worked to A profession or occupation in which a person is engaged or was engaged, better to reflect the definition of Occupation in the OED: A particular action or course of action in which a person is engaged, esp. habitually; a particular job or profession; a particular pursuit or activity. A change to the same definition in FRAD will also be requested. We can then regard (for example) Angling as a person's Field of Activity, and Angler as an occupation; using the latter, when necessary, to qualify the authorised access point. In fact some existing RDA NACO authority records have already taken this approach: Field of Activity describes what the person does; Profession or occupation describes what the person is. We need to eliminate undifferentiated *records* in order to record the new RDA elements in 046/3XX fields relating to the entity described in the record. We can still have undifferentiated *headings* in the sense described earlier by Gary, qualified temporarily by the relationship information conveyed in their square-bracketed 670s in the existing undifferentiated records, and flagged for attention before they can be re-used for RDA. They will be refined into better RDA authorised access points over time, as it shouldn't be beyond the capability of an investigative cataloguer to discern relevant professions or occupations, especially if our proposal above is accepted by JSC. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: 02 April 2012 20:29 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated Personal Names One issue that has not yet been brought up in this discussion has been the recent revision approved by the JSC to change the way Field of Activity is recorded, and to eliminate this element as a possible addition to authorized access points, thus creating more possibilities of needing an undifferentiated name. The revised examples will show that you record the name for the field of activity rather than the name for the class of persons engaged in that activity, e.g. Stamp collecting vs. Stamp collector Folklore vs. Folklorist Anthropology vs. Anthropologist Having the ability to add class of persons terms that do not represent an occupation or profession would reduce the number of undifferentiated names. Or should we even care that the field of activity term is not in a class of persons form, but be able to use it as a qualifier anyway? For example: Smith, John $c (Stamp collecting) Or perhaps the scope of the Profession or Occupation element could be enlarged so that it could include classes of persons that don't represent a profession or occupation? ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Hal The initial work of correlating the data from the LC/NAF and the German authority files and the associated bibliographic records was so effective that it revealed thousands of errors in the LC/NAF -- duplicates, false attributions, errors with undifferentiated name records. I didn't know that. What was done about the errors? Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
Hal Fuzzy logic may even do the job better than too-scarce skilled humans. It can also throw up false equivalences of its own, and create compound problems when datasets are matches against each other. You do have to set the barrier for matching very high. _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Sneaky Pie and Rita Mae Brown
I've caught up very late with this discussion, and share some of the concerns. Rather than repeating what others have said I'd just like to point out, in response to what Mike says below, that there could be issues with creating a name heading in the form Terry (Dog) - unless we are to regard being a dog as a field of activity, then Dog would appear not to be a legitimate RDA qualifier. This creates issues in differentiating not only non-human animals, but also human and non-human animals that share the same name. Having said that, if a dog were a working sheepdog, then Sheepdog that would be an occupation, and a legitimate qualifier. However, just being, for example, an Old English Sheepdog, would not cut it. We really shouldn't apply RDA rules for human name headings to headings for non-humans. _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk (my opinons alone, not those of my employer or any working animal) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: 29 April 2011 14:06 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sneaky Pie and Rita Mae Brown I don't think that all of the real-life dog and cat subjects in LCSH were established for them as creators/contributors to works. I suspect that most of them were established for works about them rather than by them. What about animal actors? Any change in tracing Trigger, Francis the talking mule, or Lassie? In the past, problems like the fact that more than one dog portrayed the character Lassie have muddied the waters on whether or how to trace them on records for moving image titles which list the animals as participants. I long to start adding Asta as a 700 to the Thin Man movie records. Of course I'd have to establish him first. And what of Toto? Should he ultimately be traced in a 700 as Terry (Dog)-- and his heading in I, Toto changed to a 600? He's billed as Toto, not Terry in Wizard of Oz... Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
I'm not going to involve myself in any politics, but I would like to say how much I enjoyed the 300 field in question. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk Private opinion, obviously. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: 02 March 2011 13:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s While NYPL would like to politicize it, An alleged initiative to which you are contributing by replying in this manner. As to whether patrons care whether illustrations are in color or in black and white, in my experience lots of public and school library patrons do care about that, and probably find that information somewhat more useful than the number of pages devoted to bibliographical references,* a term which I doubt most patrons understand any better than the frightful col. ill. or etc. Purely conjecture on my part. I'll stop now before I further politicize this thread. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2009/10 : http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
