Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
This exchange illustrates another factor that gives me pause about the whole RDA thang-- even those who helped create RDA don't appear to know precisely what it does or what it will affect. If you invite deviant practices, deviant practices will occur. Is it really a good idea for RDA to suggest using inferences (the date the item arrived at the individual cataloging agency) to determine publication date for an item that has only a copyright date but not an explicit publication date? What percentage of titles that the rest of you catalog even have an explicit publication date whether or not a copyright date is present? For us, those items are absolutely in the minority. At least using a date that actually appears on an item lessens the chance of duplicate records for a single item that was received at one cataloger's desk in, for example, December of 2010 and at another cataloger's desk in January of 2011. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Michael Cohen Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA Yes this discussion occurs about this time every year, but we solve it, in the absence of a publication date, by recording the copyright date as published on the piece regardless of when the thing was received (per AACR2 1.4F6). We CAN blame RDA for its instruction in 2.8.6.6 to supply the date or approximate date of publication when it is NOT printed on the piece, thus introducing multiple records for the same manifestation and going against the principle of exact transcription. John Attig wrote: On 11/24/2010 12:36 PM, Mike Tribby wrote: So the 2010 date, which does not actually appear on the item, would be recorded in an RDA record based simply on when the item appeared at the cataloging agency based on... what? What if the item arrived at one agency on December 31, 2010, but arrived at other cataloging agencies' offices on January 2, 2011 owing to vagaries in holiday scheduling for delivery companies? The book would then be a [2010] publication some places, but just as legitimately a 2011 for other agencies? Just another thing to love about RDA! This truly is the season of giving, isn't it? You cannot blame this on RDA. This discussion occurs about this time of year *every year* on AUTOCAT when people begin receiving materials with next year's publication date but which have obviously already been published. RDA does not change the fact that this does happen, nor the arguments about how correctly to record the facts. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu -- Michael L. Cohen Head, Copy Cataloging Catalog Maintenance Units 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3287 - Release Date: 11/29/10 07:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: November 30, 2010 9:11 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA This exchange illustrates another factor that gives me pause about the whole RDA thang-- even those who helped create RDA don't appear to know precisely what it does or what it will affect. If you invite deviant practices, deviant practices will occur. Is it really a good idea for RDA to suggest using inferences (the date the item arrived at the individual cataloging agency) to determine publication date for an item that has only a copyright date but not an explicit publication date? What percentage of titles that the rest of you catalog even have an explicit publication date whether or not a copyright date is present? For us, those items are absolutely in the minority. At least using a date that actually appears on an item lessens the chance of duplicate records for a single item that was received at one cataloger's desk in, for example, December of 2010 and at another cataloger's desk in January of 2011. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses The suggestion for using 'year of receipt' instead of Copyright date if the years are different comes from the Library of Congress Policy Statement for RDA 2.8.6.6. Above that LCPS is the one for using the Copyright date as the probable Date of publication, which is essentially the information that has always been intended to be conveyed by the recording of date practice in AACR2 and in MARC 008/07-10. Perhaps there is an argument to be made to get rid of the 'year of receipt' policy statement. There has been no shortage of conventions for providing probable dates of publication, as in AACR2 1.4F7. Even in the wording for 008/06 for s in MARC Bibliographic probable dates are considered expected conventions: Date consists of one known single date of distribution, publication, release, production, execution, writing, or a probable date that can be represented by four digits. The single date associated with the item may be actual, approximate, or conjectural (e.g., if the single date is uncertain). The possbility has always been there for different agencies to come up with different approximations or conjectures. What is different in RDA is that there are two separate elements-- two separate fields to fill out, not just one spot after 260 $c: Date of publication Copyright date So with RDA there is a change in MARC conventions for 260 to follow this direction for two separate elements-- which allows for greater specifity in indicating what information is transcribed and what is supplied, as probable dates of publication are in square brackets. By arranging familiar cataloging data into separate elements, RDA moves cataloging in a direction where that data can be used by a wider number of encoding schemes (including recognized ISO standards), which can supply additional constraints and display opportunities on that data that go beyond what is possible with MARC. The required reading on this is here: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor3.pdf. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
It makes sense for the _Library of Congress_ to use year of receipt, since publishers generally deposit with the LC when something is published -- not always, but often enough that that seems like a fine decision for LC to make for it's own cataloging, to me, for a fairly reliable date guess which will on average be better than nothing. If I was using a record created by LC, I'd be happy to have that date there. It doesn't make any sense for a random library that buys something possibly long after it's published to do that. (Although I wonder if one of RDA's several dates would allow the LC to actually say it was the date LC received it, not pretend it was the copyright date. But the point is, I care about what date the LC received it, that's useful information in the absence of any other dates, even to other libraries. I don't care about what date some random library with it's own purchasing decisions received it, that's not such useful information). Perhaps an example of the problems of using LC internal guidelines for other libraries. Got to use them with judgement as to how you are different than LC. Jonathan On 11/30/2010 10:43 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: November 30, 2010 9:11 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA This exchange illustrates another factor that gives me pause about the whole RDA thang-- even those who helped create RDA don't appear to know precisely what it does or what it will affect. If you invite deviant practices, deviant practices will occur. Is it really a good idea for RDA to suggest using inferences (the date the item arrived at the individual cataloging agency) to determine publication date for an item that has only a copyright date but not an explicit publication date? What percentage of titles that the rest of you catalog even have an explicit publication date whether or not a copyright date is present? For us, those items are absolutely in the minority. At least using a date that actually appears on an item lessens the chance of duplicate records for a single item that was received at one cataloger's desk in, for example, December of 2010 and at another cataloger's desk in January of 2011. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses The suggestion for using 'year of receipt' instead of Copyright date if the years are different comes from the Library of Congress Policy Statement for RDA 2.8.6.6. Above that LCPS is the one for using the Copyright date as the probable Date of publication, which is essentially the information that has always been intended to be conveyed by the recording of date practice in AACR2 and in MARC 008/07-10. Perhaps there is an argument to be made to get rid of the 'year of receipt' policy statement. There has been no shortage of conventions for providing probable dates of publication, as in AACR2 1.4F7. Even in the wording for 008/06 for s in MARC Bibliographic probable dates are considered expected conventions: Date consists of one known single date of distribution, publication, release, production, execution, writing, or a probable date that can be represented by four digits. The single date associated with the item may be actual, approximate, or conjectural (e.g., if the single date is uncertain). The possbility has always been there for different agencies to come up with different approximations or conjectures. What is different in RDA is that there are two separate elements-- two separate fields to fill out, not just one spot after 260 $c: Date of publication Copyright date So with RDA there is a change in MARC conventions for 260 to follow this direction for two separate elements-- which allows for greater specifity in indicating what information is transcribed and what is supplied, as probable dates of publication are in square brackets. By arranging familiar cataloging data into separate elements, RDA moves cataloging in a direction where that data can be used by a wider number of encoding schemes (including recognized ISO standards), which can supply additional constraints and display opportunities on that data that go beyond what is possible with MARC. The required reading on this is here: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor3.pdf. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
-Original Message- From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] Sent: November 30, 2010 11:08 AM To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access Cc: Brenndorfer, Thomas Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA It makes sense for the _Library of Congress_ to use year of receipt, since publishers generally deposit with the LC when something is published -- not always, but often enough that that seems like a fine decision for LC to make for it's own cataloging, to me, for a fairly reliable date guess which will on average be better than nothing. If I was using a record created by LC, I'd be happy to have that date there. It doesn't make any sense for a random library that buys something possibly long after it's published to do that. (Although I wonder if one of RDA's several dates would allow the LC to actually say it was the date LC received it, not pretend it was the copyright date. But the point is, I care about what date the LC received it, that's useful information in the absence of any other dates, even to other libraries. I don't care about what date some random library with it's own purchasing decisions received it, that's not such useful information). Perhaps an example of the problems of using LC internal guidelines for other libraries. Got to use them with judgement as to how you are different than LC. Jonathan Attaching provenance to elements is a topic I've seen mentioned in presentations about the Semantic Web translation of RDA (such as here http://www.slideshare.net/smartbroad/introduction-to-application-profiles). The JSC paper http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor3.pdf discusses the elements in the context of their traditional displayed values and their substitutions by schemes such as the fixed fields. There is also the possibility of dividing elements into subelements. And there is always the possibilty of using notes that explain the choice of Date of publication (there is an example of a note for explaining probable dates in RDA 2.20.7.3). The practice of using Copyright date as a probable Date of publication seems to be already ensconced in MARC. Fixed field 008/07-10 is for an actual or probable Date of publication/release/production/execution even if taken from a value such as 260 $c c2010. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
The JSC paper http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor3.pdf discusses the elements in the context of their traditional displayed values and their substitutions by schemes such as the fixed fields. There is also the possibility of dividing elements into subelements. And there is always the possibilty of using notes that explain the choice of Date of publication (there is an example of a note for explaining probable dates in RDA 2.20.7.3). And, eventually, there is also the possibility of taking a couple of hours to create the simplest records. This is progress? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
Frankly, I really do not see what the big deal is. Whoever catalogs a resource first is going to put that record into our shared database, which we will all then use, and most of us are going to just accept the probable or inferred date of publication that the original cataloger included in that record. If the item is received and gets cataloged in the year before the copyright date, then there is clear evidence that the publication date is not the same as the copyright date. Why should that date be changed by a library receiving the item the next year, or three years later? Just accept that the library inputting the record had the best available information and move on. In the absence of any additional indications that you have a different manifestation, why would you input a different record into our shared database? The same thing with call numbers: how many of us are really going to spend time fiddling with a perfectly decent call number on a perfectly decent record? We will copy catalog the resource and the students doing that work will move on to the next one on their cart. I don't see how patrons are going have an issue with this either. Libraries could have a local policy to use the later copyright date in the call number, but really, why is this more useful to users, and at what cost to efficiency? I'd rather spend the time creating authority records for the additional access points that we will be doing now that the rule of three is no longer the law of the land. Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu: It makes sense for the _Library of Congress_ to use year of receipt, since publishers generally deposit with the LC when something is published -- not always, but often enough that that seems like a fine decision for LC to make for it's own cataloging, to me, for a fairly reliable date guess which will on average be better than nothing. If I was using a record created by LC, I'd be happy to have that date there. I guess so, for LC. And the library I was working in had many standing orders for specialist British and European monograph series, so we could be confident in supplying a date in square brackets when needed, based on the date of receipt; if in doubt, with question mark appended. It doesn't make any sense for a random library that buys something possibly long after it's published to do that. Even then a little searching (and the old British Library records are now in OCLC -- a mixed blessing that -- usually with date of original publication) gets a likely date or range. Perhaps an example of the problems of using LC internal guidelines for other libraries. Got to use them with judgement as to how you are different than LC. By my observation, few American cataloguers (and not too many others) are trained to use judgment rather than looking for a rule. Hal Cain Melbourne, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
Yes this discussion occurs about this time every year, but we solve it, in the absence of a publication date, by recording the copyright date as published on the piece regardless of when the thing was received (per AACR2 1.4F6). We CAN blame RDA for its instruction in 2.8.6.6 to supply the date or approximate date of publication when it is NOT printed on the piece, thus introducing multiple records for the same manifestation and going against the principle of exact transcription. John Attig wrote: On 11/24/2010 12:36 PM, Mike Tribby wrote: So the 2010 date, which does not actually appear on the item, would be recorded in an RDA record based simply on when the item appeared at the cataloging agency based on... what? What if the item arrived at one agency on December 31, 2010, but arrived at other cataloging agencies' offices on January 2, 2011 owing to vagaries in holiday scheduling for delivery companies? The book would then be a [2010] publication some places, but just as legitimately a 2011 for other agencies? Just another thing to love about RDA! This truly is the season of giving, isn't it? You cannot blame this on RDA. This discussion occurs about this time of year *every year* on AUTOCAT when people begin receiving materials with next year's publication date but which have obviously already been published. RDA does not change the fact that this does happen, nor the arguments about how correctly to record the facts. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu -- Michael L. Cohen Head, Copy Cataloging Catalog Maintenance Units 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
[RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
We just received a book with no publication date and a copyright date of 2011. Under AACR2 we would catalog this as DtSt: s Date1: 2011 300 $c c2011 with a date of 2011 as the last element of the call number. Under RDA (I assume) we would catalog this as DtSt: t Date1: 2010, Date2: 2011 300 $c [2010], ©2011 with a date of 2010 as the last element of the call number. Is that correct? -- Michael L. Cohen Head, Copy Cataloging Catalog Maintenance Units 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
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edu wrote: We just received a book with no publication date and a copyright date of 2011. Under AACR2 we would catalog this as DtSt: s Date1: 2011 300 $c c2011 with a date of 2011 as the last element of the call number. Under RDA (I assume) we would catalog this as DtSt: t Date1: 2010, Date2: 2011 300 $c [2010], ©2011 with a date of 2010 as the last element of the call number. Is that correct? Yes, this is correct. Publication dates are required for published works under RDA's current incarnation. Copyright dates are optional in this case you give, but LC's practice at present is to give the copyright date for single-volume monographs regardless (LCPS 2.11), thus resulting in sometimes (or usually) two identical dates with different functions in the $c. See also LCPS 2.8.6.6 for an example just like this. Plus, I'm sure you meant the 260 field, not 300. :) I don't have a copy of the LC's Shelflisting Manual nearby, so I can't confirm the earlier date for the call number. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex Coordinator University of Minnesota Bibliographic Technical 15 Andersen Library Services (BATS) Unit 222 21st Avenue South Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
Under RDA (I assume) we would catalog this as
DtSt: t
Date1: 2010, Date2: 2011
300 $c [2010], ©2011
with a date of 2010 as the last element of the call number.
Is that correct?
It may be correct but it is bad practice. The same manifestation
received in January by another library would have been catalogued
differently.
These late in the year arrivals should be treated as published the
year of copyright. If copyright year is present, publication year
should be omitted if not printed in the item, with no insertion.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
So the 2010 date, which does not actually appear on the item, would be recorded in an RDA record based simply on when the item appeared at the cataloging agency based on... what? What if the item arrived at one agency on December 31, 2010, but arrived at other cataloging agencies' offices on January 2, 2011 owing to vagaries in holiday scheduling for delivery companies? The book would then be a [2010] publication some places, but just as legitimately a 2011 for other agencies? Just another thing to love about RDA! This truly is the season of giving, isn't it? Where's the returns desk? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:29 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edu wrote: We just received a book with no publication date and a copyright date of 2011. Under AACR2 we would catalog this as DtSt: s Date1: 2011 300 $c c2011 with a date of 2011 as the last element of the call number. Under RDA (I assume) we would catalog this as DtSt: t Date1: 2010, Date2: 2011 300 $c [2010], ©2011 with a date of 2010 as the last element of the call number. Is that correct? Yes, this is correct. Publication dates are required for published works under RDA's current incarnation. Copyright dates are optional in this case you give, but LC's practice at present is to give the copyright date for single-volume monographs regardless (LCPS 2.11), thus resulting in sometimes (or usually) two identical dates with different functions in the $c. See also LCPS 2.8.6.6 for an example just like this. Plus, I'm sure you meant the 260 field, not 300. :) I don't have a copy of the LC's Shelflisting Manual nearby, so I can't confirm the earlier date for the call number. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex CoordinatorUniversity of Minnesota Bibliographic Technical 15 Andersen Library Services (BATS) Unit222 21st Avenue South Phone: 612-624-0805Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 http://www.minitex.umn.edu/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3276 - Release Date: 11/24/10 07:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
I don't believe RDA has anything to say about what you do with your call numbers, right? Neither did AACR2, yes? On 11/24/2010 12:13 PM, Michael Cohen wrote: We just received a book with no publication date and a copyright date of 2011. Under AACR2 we would catalog this as DtSt: s Date1: 2011 300 $c c2011 with a date of 2011 as the last element of the call number. Under RDA (I assume) we would catalog this as DtSt: t Date1: 2010, Date2: 2011 300 $c [2010], ©2011 with a date of 2010 as the last element of the call number. Is that correct?
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
From Mac: These late in the year arrivals should be treated as published the year of copyright. If copyright year is present, publication year should be omitted if not printed in the item, with no insertion. So is the absence of publication dates but the presence of copyright dates a peculiarity of our practice that other catalogers do not experience? For us it's a bit of a rarity when an out-and-out publication date appears anywhere in a publication, let alone in its traditional place on the t.p. With fewer and fewer publications having pub dates and more and more of them having copyright dates it renews the thought that some of the writers of RDA may not have been actively engaged in creating cataloging records in a while. Yes, I realize my observations here are specific to printed media. No, I don't recall seeing a lot of publication dates as opposed to copyright dates on digital or online entities. Perhaps I need to expand my world. And while we're at it, are we certain that patrons who are utterly baffled by stuff like etc. and col. ill. all immediately know what a c in a little circle means? Seems like we can assume they're all morons or not, but we ought to pick a lane. (Clarification for the excessively detailed: I do not personally think patrons are morons, either individually or in the aggregate. But then I think they're likely smart enough to search in a dictionary, Wikipedia, or on Google when they encounter common definitions that they don't recognize). Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
