Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: RDA has WEMI; Bibframe has W/I. My limited grasp of the BIBFRAME discussion suggests that it doesn't have to be structured as WEMI. Since it's trying to be all things to all people, it only has to accommodate it. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
Stephen Early asked:
And whether I like it or not, RDA treats the microfilm as the
manifestation on which I must base my description. Since you've
been going through RDA longer than I have*, I would be interested in
your comments/justifications.
The short answer is I don't. RDA has WEMI; Bibframe has W/I. The
WEMI distinctions and definitions so far have little practical
applicability.
While some micro and electronic resources may be published by their
respective providers (e.g., Credo), in fact for most the content was
determined by the original print publisher (264 1), the micro vendor
is manufacturer of the micro version (264 3), and the electronic
aggregator is distributor (264 2).
We will have to wait and see what the PN standard does with RDA. The
current standard has original print publisher, and ignores both
manufacturer and distributor. So you are closer to the present PN
standard by having original publisher in 264 1. Someone who wants PN
can simply remove the 2nd 264, as opposed to changing it from the
micro/electronic one to the print one.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
Mac, What about the fixed fields? How are you treating the two dates from repeating 264s then? Using r in DtSt or representing the original vs. microforms dates in a different way? In the LC catalog (and as an example in their training module 4), this microform uses r and both dates in the 008, though it still has the 260 field when this was cataloged. http://lccn.loc.gov/93627144 Emily Emily Flynn, Catalog Librarian, Content Operations ProQuest | 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346 | Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA | +1 734 707 2422 emily.fl...@proquest.com www.proquest.com ProQuest ... Start here. 2012 InformationWeek 500 Top Innovator | 2012 Detroit Free Press Michigan Top Workplace -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-l...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:32 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA Emily Flynn said: Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the original only gets noted in a 776 field ... There are other options, including 534 and repeating 264. We put the original publisher in 264 1, and the micro distributor or manufacturer in 264 2 or 3. We tend to use 3 for microforms (since there is physical manufacturing), and 2 for electronic aggregators. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
Emily Flynn asked:
What about the fixed fields? How are you treating the two dates from
repeating 264s then? Using r in DtSt or representing the original
vs. microforms dates in a different way?
We find it counter intuitive that apart from continuing resources, the
later date does in date one, and the ealier date goes in date two,
with type of date r. But so it is. So far as we know, RDA did not
change fixed field coding of dates, just raised the question of fixed
field coding when the publication and copyright year are the same, and
both are (needlessly) recorded.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
Benjamin A Abrahamse said: On the CONSERlist there has been discussion of this same issue and the point has been raised: if we can (perhaps for slightly different reasons) countenance a provider neutral practice with respect to electronic reproductions, could we think of microfilm reproductions along the same lines? When I worked with the US Newspaper Program many years ago, we used provider neutral bibliographic records. We didn't call them provider neutral, though-- we called them master bibliographic records. Bibliographic information relating to the original format was entered into OCLC, and information relating to reproductions was added in holdings records. So there is a precedent in cataloging history for this type of approach. :-) Best wishes, Faye Leibowitz General Languages Catalog Librarian University Library System University of Pittsburgh frle...@pitt.edu
Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
Whether the resource is in the original format or a reproduction does not make a difference in regard to choice of access points for the work and expression. The MARC fields and subfields should be the same. The only instance in which access points might not be appropriate is if the name is for an entity associated with the original manifestation or a specific copy, and that association does not apply to the reproduction; I think such a case will be rather rare, though. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! Also along these lines, could names and corporate bodies associated with the original still be given access points in 7xx fields and if so what's the best $e/$4 for them...bibliographical antecedent? How do users find the 1500 rare book that's now scanned to microform in 2012 or a government report released in 2009 but filmed as a reproduction in 2013? Emily Flynn, Catalog Librarian, Content Operations ProQuest | 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346 | Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA | +1 734 707 2422 emily.fl...@proquest.commailto:emily.fl...@proquest.com www.proquest.com ProQuest ... Start here. 2012 InformationWeek 500 Top Innovator | 2012 Detroit Free Press Michigan Top Workplace
[RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
With RDA, reproductions in a new format (such as microform) shift cataloging focus to the manifestation in hand rather than the original content the new format conveys. The same was true in the switch from AACR(1) to AACR2 but an LCRI allowed for the use of a 533 reproduction note enabling the cataloger to catalog the original material's information. However, there doesn't seem to be a LCPS, at least not yet, to the same effect. Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the original only gets noted in a 776 field, where it seems that the original dates of the material won't be indexed for user searches in the catalog. The 264, 300, and fixed fields, etc., will contain the publisher/producer of the current microform manifestation in hand, losing the date and publisher of the original content held in such fields previously (via the LCRI). Also along these lines, could names and corporate bodies associated with the original still be given access points in 7xx fields and if so what's the best $e/$4 for them...bibliographical antecedent? How do users find the 1500 rare book that's now scanned to microform in 2012 or a government report released in 2009 but filmed as a reproduction in 2013? Has anyone else dealt with this? Perhaps this will be resolved somewhat, for rare books at least, when DCRM(B) new guidelines are released for RDA. Is there other ways to include the original content in the bibliographical record of the new format's manifestation better so as not to lose the essence of the content when it's viewed? Thanks! Emily Emily Flynn, Catalog Librarian, Content Operations ProQuest | 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346 | Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA | +1 734 707 2422 emily.fl...@proquest.commailto:emily.fl...@proquest.com www.proquest.com ProQuest ... Start here. 2012 InformationWeek 500 Top Innovator | 2012 Detroit Free Press Michigan Top Workplace
Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
Field 046 could be used to record the creation date of the work, and could certainly be indexed and displayed. You could also still use field 534 in RDA I think. ^^ 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 Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Flynn, Emily wrote: With RDA, reproductions in a new format (such as microform) shift cataloging focus to the manifestation in hand rather than the original content the new format conveys. The same was true in the switch from AACR(1) to AACR2 but an LCRI allowed for the use of a 533 reproduction note enabling the cataloger to catalog the original material's information. However, there doesn't seem to be a LCPS, at least not yet, to the same effect. Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the original only gets noted in a 776 field, where it seems that the original dates of the material won't be indexed for user searches in the catalog. The 264, 300, and fixed fields, etc., will contain the publisher/producer of the current microform manifestation in hand, losing the date and publisher of the original content held in such fields previously (via the LCRI). Also along these lines, could names and corporate bodies associated with the original still be given access points in 7xx fields and if so what's the best $e/$4 for them...bibliographical antecedent? How do users find the 1500 rare book that's now scanned to microform in 2012 or a government report released in 2009 but filmed as a reproduction in 2013? Has anyone else dealt with this? Perhaps this will be resolved somewhat, for rare books at least, when DCRM(B) new guidelines are released for RDA. Is there other ways to include the original content in the bibliographical record of the new format's manifestation better so as not to lose the essence of the content when it's viewed? Thanks! Emily Emily Flynn, Catalog Librarian, Content Operations ProQuest | 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346 | Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA | +1 734 707 2422 emily.fl...@proquest.commailto:emily.fl...@proquest.com www.proquest.com ProQuest ... Start here. 2012 InformationWeek 500 Top Innovator | 2012 Detroit Free Press Michigan Top Workplace
Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
Emily Flynn said:
Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the origi=
nal only gets noted in a 776 field ...
There are other options, including 534 and repeating 264.
We put the original publisher in 264 1, and the micro distributor or
manufacturer in 264 2 or 3. We tend to use 3 for microforms (since
there is physical manufacturing), and 2 for electronic aggregators.
In AACR2, we put the orignal publisher in 260$a$b$c, and the micro
manufacturer in 260$e$f$g.
I'm quite happy with the end of that LCRI for reproductions. It
became absurd with reproductions of reproductions, and reproductions
of unpublished items for which there were no bibliographic records to
adapt.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
534 or 7xx is better than nothing but I continue to think the old way (using 533 for the reproduction information, 260--now 264, for the publication information of the original) puts the bibliographical information that users are interested in where they are most likely to look. In my experience microform is a format of last resort for users; if anything, they want to know that something is in microform so they can filter it out of their search results. The information users need to find and select the resource they want is the publication information of what was filmed, not who did the filming. I know that some next-generation discovery system is supposed to take care of all of this, but we ain't there yet, and when we get there we'll still have to worry about converting all of the records done incorrectly, likely through some conversion process. On the CONSERlist there has been discussion of this same issue and the point has been raised: if we can (perhaps for slightly different reasons) countenance a provider neutral practice with respect to electronic reproductions, could we think of microfilm reproductions along the same lines? --Ben From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Adam L. Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:29 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA Field 046 could be used to record the creation date of the work, and could certainly be indexed and displayed. You could also still use field 534 in RDA I think. ^^ 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 Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Flynn, Emily wrote: With RDA, reproductions in a new format (such as microform) shift cataloging focus to the manifestation in hand rather than the original content the new format conveys. The same was true in the switch from AACR(1) to AACR2 but an LCRI allowed for the use of a 533 reproduction note enabling the cataloger to catalog the original material's information. However, there doesn't seem to be a LCPS, at least not yet, to the same effect. Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the original only gets noted in a 776 field, where it seems that the original dates of the material won't be indexed for user searches in the catalog. The 264, 300, and fixed fields, etc., will contain the publisher/producer of the current microform manifestation in hand, losing the date and publisher of the original content held in such fields previously (via the LCRI). Also along these lines, could names and corporate bodies associated with the original still be given access points in 7xx fields and if so what's the best $e/$4 for them...bibliographical antecedent? How do users find the 1500 rare book that's now scanned to microform in 2012 or a government report released in 2009 but filmed as a reproduction in 2013? Has anyone else dealt with this? Perhaps this will be resolved somewhat, for rare books at least, when DCRM(B) new guidelines are released for RDA. Is there other ways to include the original content in the bibliographical record of the new format's manifestation better so as not to lose the essence of the content when it's viewed? Thanks! Emily Emily Flynn, Catalog Librarian, Content Operations ProQuest | 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346 | Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA | +1 734 707 2422 emily.fl...@proquest.commailto:emily.fl...@proquest.com www.proquest.com ProQuest ... Start here. 2012 InformationWeek 500 Top Innovator | 2012 Detroit Free Press Michigan Top Workplace
