Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
I have been following this thread about the 040. Does it really matter what order the subfields are placed in in the 040 in an online environment? It matters greatly (at least theoretically) to those who enjoy assigning blame to specific cataloging agencies for what they perceive to be bad cataloging. It's a bad tool for doing that, but righteous sentiment about avenging cataloging errors seems to overwhelm that. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Carolyn, Don't demean your knowledge of linked data. The message is actually quite simple, which is that there is a need similar to that of MARC records to be able to say who created the data so that you can estimate the authoritativeness of the data. Whether or not the 040 will figure in this in some Semantic Web future is still unknown. And the complexity of who created a particular bibliographic description is as complex in that future as it is in the MARC environment today. My guess is that getting a straight answer out of existing 040 fields will be difficult, at best. I, for one, am much less confident than Gordon that the 040 will prove to be the answer, since we know that many local systems ignore the field. But we'll have to wait and see. kc On 8/20/12 7:31 AM, Kadri, Carolyn J wrote: I stand corrected. Actually, I don't speak MARC21 schema for linked data and Semantic Web applications, so, I spoke out of ignorance of the full potential impact for metadata applications. I appreciate the informative link Gordon sent out. I have been trying to develop a basic understanding of what is meant by the Semantic Web, etc., and the website was useful although having read about the 040, it was unclear to me if the effect of order in the 040 is a real problem or not. So my apologies to my colleagues for speaking out without understanding the big picture. Carolyn Kadri Head Cataloger Special Collections University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, TX 76019 * -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of gor...@gordondunsire.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:38 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields It also matters when it comes to semantic analysis of the MARC21 schema for linked data and Semantic Web applications. See the last paragraph of my blog post: http://managemetadata.com/blog/2012/06/07/by-passing-taggregations/ It matters even more when the provenance of the billions of data triples derived from existing MARC21 records is needed to distinguish them from metadata generated by end-users and machines, which will be orders of magnitude higher in number. Cheers Gordon On 20 August 2012 at 14:26 Mike Tribby mike.tri...@quality-books.com wrote: I have been following this thread about the 040. Does it really matter what order the subfields are placed in in the 040 in an online environment? It matters greatly (at least theoretically) to those who enjoy assigning blame to specific cataloging agencies for what they perceive to be bad cataloging. It's a bad tool for doing that, but righteous sentiment about avenging cataloging errors seems to overwhelm that. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
I have been following this thread about the 040. Does it really matter what
order the subfields are placed in in the 040 in an online environment? Does it
affect any retrieval reports? Are we being a little anal-retentive in
devoting so much discussion to this issue just for the sake of consistency? I
know we catalogers feel a need from long years of training with cataloging
rules to be consistent as much as possible, but it seems like we should be
discussing more important matters to do with the application of RDA rules. I
don't mean to be insulting my colleagues-that is not my purpose - I just think
we need to move on. The subfield order in the 040 will work itself out.
Carolyn Kadri
Head Cataloger
Special Collections
University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, TX 76019
ka...@uta.edu
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:59 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Consistency is a good thing only if it is followed consistently in practice. I
have previously asked if PCC and LC have both come to the same conclusion that
$b before $e is the order to be, if not already. So I ask again. And if so, why
my search of dx:rda/dlc/2013 shows $e before $b to be true of nearly all DLC
records. I would love some consistency to follow but perhaps that's not here
yet?
Jack
Jack Wu
j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Gary L Strawn mrsm...@northwestern.edumailto:mrsm...@northwestern.edu
8/15/2012 10:02 AM
Yep. During the manipulation of the LC/NACO authority file for use under RDA,
all records without $b will receive it. This means that records re-coded as
RDA during phase 2 will have $b as the second subfield in the 040 field, and $e
as the third subfield. Sounds pretty consistent to me.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edumailto:mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice:
847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]mailto:[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]
On Behalf Of Michael Cohen
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 8:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
The term consistent position is relative rather than absolute. If $e
is to *precede* $c then it could be either the 2nd or 3rd subfield
depending on whether $b is present. Is that correct?
On 8/14/2012 1:03 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
The always well informated Mark quoted:
Thanks to Joanna for citing this PCC recommendation. OCLC's view on
the order of subfields is also very much influenced by this
recommendation. We believe that having $e in a consistent position
and in the position that is recommended will assist in the quick
identification of RDA records.
Certainly having 040$e in a consistent position would be good. Having
it last, in alphabetical order, we find easier to spot than between
other subfields (after either $a or $b). I don't look forward to
having to redo all our RDA Procedures and programs to allow for
variation in placement for rda$e. Sometimes the simplist solution is
best.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
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.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu
Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Thank you Gary, very much, for your efforts. Your reply at least convinces me that in so far as NAME AUTHORITY RECORDS are concerned $b is before $e in 100 percent of the cases. However, my confusion specifically has to do with BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORDS for books. I lack an expertise to look at or extract from large files, such as all 2012 RDA records. In OCLC Connexion, with the command line search key of: dx:rda/dlc/2013 however I get 987 book records and 18 textual serial ones. Of the 987 book records of 2013 imprint, as I indicated, the overwhelming majority have $e before $b. Which still puzzles me, since they are DLC of rather recent dates of input and modification. Regards, Jack Jack Wu Technical Services Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu Gary L Strawn mrsm...@northwestern.edu 8/16/2012 5:00 PM I asked a program to look at the weekly files of LC/NACO name authority records from 2012: find the new records in each issue (from Leader/05) that contain both $b and $e in the 040 field, and see whether $b or $e comes first. Here are the results: File 32 has 139552 records, of which 1306 have both $b and $e; in 1306 of these, $b comes before $e File 31 has 39665 records, of which 1055 have both $b and $e; in 1055 of these, $b comes before $e File 30 has 8959 records, of which 848 have both $b and $e; in 848 of these, $b comes before $e File 29 has 9928 records, of which 899 have both $b and $e; in 899 of these, $b comes before $e File 28 has 7237 records, of which 556 have both $b and $e; in 556 of these, $b comes before $e File 27 has 8691 records, of which 715 have both $b and $e; in 715 of these, $b comes before $e File 26 has 7896 records, of which 604 have both $b and $e; in 604 of these, $b comes before $e File 25 has 8538 records, of which 575 have both $b and $e; in 575 of these, $b comes before $e File 24 has 8618 records, of which 530 have both $b and $e; in 530 of these, $b comes before $e File 23 has 8761 records, of which 631 have both $b and $e; in 631 of these, $b comes before $e File 22 has 8946 records, of which 605 have both $b and $e; in 605 of these, $b comes before $e File 21 has 9490 records, of which 567 have both $b and $e; in 567 of these, $b comes before $e File 20 has 9364 records, of which 456 have both $b and $e; in 456 of these, $b comes before $e File 19 has 8590 records, of which 439 have both $b and $e; in 439 of these, $b comes before $e File 18 has 8917 records, of which 512 have both $b and $e; in 512 of these, $b comes before $e File 17 has 9693 records, of which 532 have both $b and $e; in 532 of these, $b comes before $e File 16 has 9037 records, of which 422 have both $b and $e; in 422 of these, $b comes before $e File 15 has 8743 records, of which 372 have both $b and $e; in 372 of these, $b comes before $e File 14 has 9443 records, of which 356 have both $b and $e; in 356 of these, $b comes before $e File 13 has 9087 records, of which 448 have both $b and $e; in 448 of these, $b comes before $e File 12 has 9485 records, of which 399 have both $b and $e; in 399 of these, $b comes before $e File 11 has 9661 records, of which 384 have both $b and $e; in 384 of these, $b comes before $e File 10 has 10645 records, of which 410 have both $b and $e; in 410 of these, $b comes before $e File 9 has 9488 records, of which 470 have both $b and $e; in 470 of these, $b comes before $e File 8 has 8971 records, of which 371 have both $b and $e; in 371 of these, $b comes before $e File 7 has 10574 records, of which 473 have both $b and $e; in 473 of these, $b comes before $e File 6 has 10306 records, of which 434 have both $b and $e; in 434 of these, $b comes before $e File 5 has 9787 records, of which 390 have both $b and $e; in 390 of these, $b comes before $e File 4 has 8565 records, of which 273 have both $b and $e; in 273 of these, $b comes before $e File 3 has 9449 records, of which 498 have both $b and $e; in 498 of these, $b comes before $e File 2 has 8096 records, of which 338 have both $b and $e; in 338 of these, $b comes before $e File 1 has 3950 records, of which 171 have both $b and $e; in 171 of these, $b comes before $e Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:59 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields Consistency is a good thing only if it is followed consistently in practice. I have previously asked if PCC and LC have both come
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On
Behalf Of Jack Wu
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:59 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Consistency is a good thing only if it is followed consistently in practice. I
have previously asked if PCC and LC
have both come to the same conclusion that $b before $e is the order to be, if
not already. So I ask again. And if
so, why my search of dx:rda/dlc/2013 shows $e before $b to be true of nearly
all DLC records. I would love some
consistency to follow but perhaps that's not here yet?
Jack
Jack Wu
j...@franciscan.edu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Gary L Strawn mrsm...@northwestern.edu 8/15/2012 10:02 AM
Yep. During the manipulation of the LC/NACO authority file for use under RDA,
all records without $b will receive
it. This means that records re-coded as RDA during phase 2 will have $b as the
second subfield in the 040 field,
and $e as the third subfield. Sounds pretty consistent to me.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416
-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: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 8:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
The term consistent position is relative rather than absolute. If $e
is to *precede* $c then it could be either the 2nd or 3rd subfield
depending on whether $b is present. Is that correct?
On 8/14/2012 1:03 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
The always well informated Mark quoted:
Thanks to Joanna for citing this PCC recommendation. OCLC's view on
the order of subfields is also very much influenced by this
recommendation. We believe that having $e in a consistent position
and in the position that is recommended will assist in the quick
identification of RDA records.
Certainly having 040$e in a consistent position would be good. Having
it last, in alphabetical order, we find easier to spot than between
other subfields (after either $a or $b). I don't look forward to
having to redo all our RDA Procedures and programs to allow for
variation in placement for rda$e. Sometimes the simplist solution is
best.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
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) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861
Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
390 have both $b and $e; in 390 of
these, $b comes before $e
File 4 has 8565 records, of which 273 have both $b and $e; in 273 of
these, $b comes before $e
File 3 has 9449 records, of which 498 have both $b and $e; in 498 of
these, $b comes before $e
File 2 has 8096 records, of which 338 have both $b and $e; in 338 of
these, $b comes before $e
File 1 has 3950 records, of which 171 have both $b and $e; in 171 of
these, $b comes before $e
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On
Behalf Of Jack Wu
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:59 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Consistency is a good thing only if it is followed consistently in practice.
I have previously asked if PCC and LC
have both come to the same conclusion that $b before $e is the order to be,
if not already. So I ask again. And if
so, why my search of dx:rda/dlc/2013 shows $e before $b to be true of nearly
all DLC records. I would love some
consistency to follow but perhaps that's not here yet?
Jack
Jack Wu
j...@franciscan.edu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Gary L Strawn mrsm...@northwestern.edu 8/15/2012 10:02 AM
Yep. During the manipulation of the LC/NACO authority file for use under
RDA, all records without $b will receive
it. This means that records re-coded as RDA during phase 2 will have $b as
the second subfield in the 040 field,
and $e as the third subfield. Sounds pretty consistent to me.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416
-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: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 8:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
The term consistent position is relative rather than absolute. If $e
is to *precede* $c then it could be either the 2nd or 3rd subfield
depending on whether $b is present. Is that correct?
On 8/14/2012 1:03 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
The always well informated Mark quoted:
Thanks to Joanna for citing this PCC recommendation. OCLC's view on
the order of subfields is also very much influenced by this
recommendation. We believe that having $e in a consistent position
and in the position that is recommended will assist in the quick
identification of RDA records.
Certainly having 040$e in a consistent position would be good. Having
it last, in alphabetical order, we find easier to spot than between
other subfields (after either $a or $b). I don't look forward to
having to redo all our RDA Procedures and programs to allow for
variation in placement for rda$e. Sometimes the simplist solution is
best.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
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
Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
I asked a program to look at the weekly files of LC/NACO name authority records from 2012: find the new records in each issue (from Leader/05) that contain both $b and $e in the 040 field, and see whether $b or $e comes first. Here are the results: File 32 has 139552 records, of which 1306 have both $b and $e; in 1306 of these, $b comes before $e File 31 has 39665 records, of which 1055 have both $b and $e; in 1055 of these, $b comes before $e File 30 has 8959 records, of which 848 have both $b and $e; in 848 of these, $b comes before $e File 29 has 9928 records, of which 899 have both $b and $e; in 899 of these, $b comes before $e File 28 has 7237 records, of which 556 have both $b and $e; in 556 of these, $b comes before $e File 27 has 8691 records, of which 715 have both $b and $e; in 715 of these, $b comes before $e File 26 has 7896 records, of which 604 have both $b and $e; in 604 of these, $b comes before $e File 25 has 8538 records, of which 575 have both $b and $e; in 575 of these, $b comes before $e File 24 has 8618 records, of which 530 have both $b and $e; in 530 of these, $b comes before $e File 23 has 8761 records, of which 631 have both $b and $e; in 631 of these, $b comes before $e File 22 has 8946 records, of which 605 have both $b and $e; in 605 of these, $b comes before $e File 21 has 9490 records, of which 567 have both $b and $e; in 567 of these, $b comes before $e File 20 has 9364 records, of which 456 have both $b and $e; in 456 of these, $b comes before $e File 19 has 8590 records, of which 439 have both $b and $e; in 439 of these, $b comes before $e File 18 has 8917 records, of which 512 have both $b and $e; in 512 of these, $b comes before $e File 17 has 9693 records, of which 532 have both $b and $e; in 532 of these, $b comes before $e File 16 has 9037 records, of which 422 have both $b and $e; in 422 of these, $b comes before $e File 15 has 8743 records, of which 372 have both $b and $e; in 372 of these, $b comes before $e File 14 has 9443 records, of which 356 have both $b and $e; in 356 of these, $b comes before $e File 13 has 9087 records, of which 448 have both $b and $e; in 448 of these, $b comes before $e File 12 has 9485 records, of which 399 have both $b and $e; in 399 of these, $b comes before $e File 11 has 9661 records, of which 384 have both $b and $e; in 384 of these, $b comes before $e File 10 has 10645 records, of which 410 have both $b and $e; in 410 of these, $b comes before $e File 9 has 9488 records, of which 470 have both $b and $e; in 470 of these, $b comes before $e File 8 has 8971 records, of which 371 have both $b and $e; in 371 of these, $b comes before $e File 7 has 10574 records, of which 473 have both $b and $e; in 473 of these, $b comes before $e File 6 has 10306 records, of which 434 have both $b and $e; in 434 of these, $b comes before $e File 5 has 9787 records, of which 390 have both $b and $e; in 390 of these, $b comes before $e File 4 has 8565 records, of which 273 have both $b and $e; in 273 of these, $b comes before $e File 3 has 9449 records, of which 498 have both $b and $e; in 498 of these, $b comes before $e File 2 has 8096 records, of which 338 have both $b and $e; in 338 of these, $b comes before $e File 1 has 3950 records, of which 171 have both $b and $e; in 171 of these, $b comes before $e Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:59 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields Consistency is a good thing only if it is followed consistently in practice. I have previously asked if PCC and LC have both come to the same conclusion that $b before $e is the order to be, if not already. So I ask again. And if so, why my search of dx:rda/dlc/2013 shows $e before $b to be true of nearly all DLC records. I would love some consistency to follow but perhaps that's not here yet? Jack Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu Franciscan University of Steubenville Gary L Strawn mrsm...@northwestern.edu 8/15/2012 10:02 AM Yep. During the manipulation of the LC/NACO authority file for use under RDA, all records without $b will receive it. This means that records re-coded as RDA during phase 2 will have $b as the second subfield in the 040 field, and $e as the third subfield. Sounds pretty consistent to me. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
when I look at the LC distributed records there are two patterns $a $b $c $d $e including $a $b $c $d $e $d and $a $b $e $c $d I don't think I have ever seen the $e before the $b but there certainly isn't any consistency about $e coming before or after $c ; if it comes at the end--after $c/d there may be additional $d's added after the $e. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields I asked a program to look at the weekly files of LC/NACO name authority records from 2012: find the new records in each issue (from Leader/05) that contain both $b and $e in the 040 field, and see whether $b or $e comes first. Here are the results: File 32 has 139552 records, of which 1306 have both $b and $e; in 1306 of these, $b comes before $e File 31 has 39665 records, of which 1055 have both $b and $e; in 1055 of these, $b comes before $e File 30 has 8959 records, of which 848 have both $b and $e; in 848 of these, $b comes before $e File 29 has 9928 records, of which 899 have both $b and $e; in 899 of these, $b comes before $e File 28 has 7237 records, of which 556 have both $b and $e; in 556 of these, $b comes before $e File 27 has 8691 records, of which 715 have both $b and $e; in 715 of these, $b comes before $e File 26 has 7896 records, of which 604 have both $b and $e; in 604 of these, $b comes before $e File 25 has 8538 records, of which 575 have both $b and $e; in 575 of these, $b comes before $e File 24 has 8618 records, of which 530 have both $b and $e; in 530 of these, $b comes before $e File 23 has 8761 records, of which 631 have both $b and $e; in 631 of these, $b comes before $e File 22 has 8946 records, of which 605 have both $b and $e; in 605 of these, $b comes before $e File 21 has 9490 records, of which 567 have both $b and $e; in 567 of these, $b comes before $e File 20 has 9364 records, of which 456 have both $b and $e; in 456 of these, $b comes before $e File 19 has 8590 records, of which 439 have both $b and $e; in 439 of these, $b comes before $e File 18 has 8917 records, of which 512 have both $b and $e; in 512 of these, $b comes before $e File 17 has 9693 records, of which 532 have both $b and $e; in 532 of these, $b comes before $e File 16 has 9037 records, of which 422 have both $b and $e; in 422 of these, $b comes before $e File 15 has 8743 records, of which 372 have both $b and $e; in 372 of these, $b comes before $e File 14 has 9443 records, of which 356 have both $b and $e; in 356 of these, $b comes before $e File 13 has 9087 records, of which 448 have both $b and $e; in 448 of these, $b comes before $e File 12 has 9485 records, of which 399 have both $b and $e; in 399 of these, $b comes before $e File 11 has 9661 records, of which 384 have both $b and $e; in 384 of these, $b comes before $e File 10 has 10645 records, of which 410 have both $b and $e; in 410 of these, $b comes before $e File 9 has 9488 records, of which 470 have both $b and $e; in 470 of these, $b comes before $e File 8 has 8971 records, of which 371 have both $b and $e; in 371 of these, $b comes before $e File 7 has 10574 records, of which 473 have both $b and $e; in 473 of these, $b comes before $e File 6 has 10306 records, of which 434 have both $b and $e; in 434 of these, $b comes before $e File 5 has 9787 records, of which 390 have both $b and $e; in 390 of these, $b comes before $e File 4 has 8565 records, of which 273 have both $b and $e; in 273 of these, $b comes before $e File 3 has 9449 records, of which 498 have both $b and $e; in 498 of these, $b comes before $e File 2 has 8096 records, of which 338 have both $b and $e; in 338 of these, $b comes before $e File 1 has 3950 records, of which 171 have both $b and $e; in 171 of these, $b comes before $e Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:59 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields Consistency is a good thing only if it is followed consistently in practice. I have previously asked if PCC and LC have both come to the same conclusion that $b before $e is the order to be, if not already. So I ask
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
The term consistent position is relative rather than absolute. If $e
is to *precede* $c then it could be either the 2nd or 3rd subfield
depending on whether $b is present. Is that correct?
On 8/14/2012 1:03 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
The always well informated Mark quoted:
Thanks to Joanna for citing this PCC recommendation. OCLC's view on
the order of subfields is also very much influenced by this
recommendation. We believe that having $e in a consistent position
and in the position that is recommended will assist in the quick
identification of RDA records.
Certainly having 040$e in a consistent position would be good. Having
it last, in alphabetical order, we find easier to spot than between
other subfields (after either $a or $b). I don't look forward to
having to redo all our RDA Procedures and programs to allow for
variation in placement for rda$e. Sometimes the simplist solution is
best.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
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
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Patton,Glenn patt...@oclc.org wrote: Thanks to Joanna for citing this PCC recommendation. OCLC’s view on the order of subfields is also very much influenced by this recommendation. We believe that having $e in a consistent position and in the position that is recommended will assist in the quick identification of RDA records. A follow-up for clarification: does the practice of placing $e rda before the 040 $c also pertain to bib and authority records that are flipped from AACR(2) to RDA? And might otherwise have a chain of codes in the 040? A bib record example: Desc: a 040 -- DLC $c DLC $d ABC $d MIN Neither the Task Group's document mentioned up-thread nor Glenn's response specifically mentions this scenario. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
The always well informated Mark quoted:
Thanks to Joanna for citing this PCC recommendation. OCLC's view on
the order of subfields is also very much influenced by this
recommendation. We believe that having $e in a consistent position
and in the position that is recommended will assist in the quick
identification of RDA records.
Certainly having 040$e in a consistent position would be good. Having
it last, in alphabetical order, we find easier to spot than between
other subfields (after either $a or $b). I don't look forward to
having to redo all our RDA Procedures and programs to allow for
variation in placement for rda$e. Sometimes the simplist solution is
best.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Mac Elrod wrote: Certainly having 040$e in a consistent position would be good. Having it last, in alphabetical order, we find easier to spot than between other subfields (after either $a or $b). I don't look forward to having to redo all our RDA Procedures and programs to allow for variation in placement for rda$e. Sometimes the simplist solution is best. Well said! Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Is this up for vote? Perhaps not. A ruling's in order then? PCC recommended order: $a $b $e $c? Has it been adopted? What about LC? I searched dx:rda/dlc/2013 in OCLC and got 900+ records. A look at the first 40 book records show 37 dlc records having the order $a $e $b $c, the only 3 exceptions in my search are entry 22, 32, 38. It would seem current LC practice varies somewhat from the PCC recommendation. Just waiting to see how OCLC, LC, and PCC will come together on these, if they have not already and I'm only behind in the news. Jack Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu Mary Mastraccio ma...@marcive.com 8/14/2012 3:31 PM Mac Elrod wrote: Certainly having 040$e in a consistent position would be good. Having it last, in alphabetical order, we find easier to spot than between other subfields (after either $a or $b). I don't look forward to having to redo all our RDA Procedures and programs to allow for variation in placement for rda$e. Sometimes the simplist solution is best. Well said! Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
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] Order of 040 subfields
During phase 2 of the manipulation of the LC/NACO authority file for use under RDA (to take place next March, knock on wood): If an AACR2 authority record (AACR2 does not include AACR2-compatible) is otherwise being modified (for example, to change b. in subfield $d of an X00 field to a hyphen) and if the 1XX field in such an otherwise-modified AACR2 record is deemed acceptable for use under RDA (by the lack of any identifiable blocking condition), then the otherwise-modified acceptable AACR2 authority record will be re-coded as RDA. (Under the revised two-phase plan, no AACR2 records are being re-issued solely to re-code to RDA.) I had thought that somewhere in the extensive documentation there was a description of just what re-coded as RDA means but I don't find it in a quick scan. Here's what happens (though you could probably guess): 1) Change 008/10 to z 2) Add 040 $e rda I'll keep looking in the documentation, and add the description of re-coding if I don't eventually find it (or at least move it to a more easily-found place). But meanwhile: The alternatives for the location of $e appear to be: 1) put $e in a constant and predictable place (just before $c) 2) put $e adjacent to (probably before) the $d code for the modifying institution While I don't think the world will spin much faster either way, I prefer putting the subfield in a predictable location, so the eye can be trained to catch it reliably; the institution making the upgrade can always be identified by viewing the record's history. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields I'm sorry, typo there - there is a school of thought that *$e* should precede $c.
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
The PCC Task Group on AACR2 RDA Acceptable Heading Categories: Recommendation 5.13, reads: */Task Group recommendations:/* 1. Consistently display 040 subfield $e immediately preceding the 040 subfield $c. 1. If the subfield is repeated, display in the order each subfield $e was added to the record. 2. Apply this recommendation to the field 040 in the Bibliographic Format as well. 3. Update the MARC documentation for field 040 (Bibliographic Format and Authority Format) to reflect this display change. See the full recommendation under: RDA PCC Proposed Guidelines and Standards -- PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues -- High Priority Recommendations at http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20PCC%20Proposed%20Guidelines%20and%20Standards.html --Joanna -- Joanna K. Dyla Head, Metadata Development Unit Metadata Department Stanford University Libraries 650-723-2529 jd...@stanford.edu On 8/2/2012 7:25 AM, Gary L Strawn wrote: During phase 2 of the manipulation of the LC/NACO authority file for use under RDA (to take place next March, knock on wood): If an AACR2 authority record (AACR2 does not include AACR2-compatible) is otherwise being modified (for example, to change b. in subfield $d of an X00 field to a hyphen) and if the 1XX field in such an otherwise-modified AACR2 record is deemed acceptable for use under RDA (by the lack of any identifiable blocking condition), then the otherwise-modified acceptable AACR2 authority record will be re-coded as RDA. (Under the revised two-phase plan, no AACR2 records are being re-issued solely to re-code to RDA.) I had thought that somewhere in the extensive documentation there was a description of just what re-coded as RDA means but I don't find it in a quick scan. Here's what happens (though you could probably guess): 1) Change 008/10 to z 2) Add 040 $e rda I'll keep looking in the documentation, and add the description of re-coding if I don't eventually find it (or at least move it to a more easily-found place). But meanwhile: The alternatives for the location of $e appear to be: 1) put $e in a constant and predictable place (just before $c) 2) put $e adjacent to (probably before) the $d code for the modifying institution While I don't think the world will spin much faster either way, I prefer putting the subfield in a predictable location, so the eye can be trained to catch it reliably; the institution making the upgrade can always be identified by viewing the record's history. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields I'm sorry, typo there - there is a school of thought that *$e* should precede $c.
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Thanks to Joanna for citing this PCC recommendation. OCLC’s view on the order of subfields is also very much influenced by this recommendation. We believe that having $e in a consistent position and in the position that is recommended will assist in the quick identification of RDA records. Glenn E. Patton Director, WorldCat Quality Management OCLC 6565 Kilgour Place Dublin OH 43017-3395 Phone: +1.800.828.5878, ext. 6371 or +1.614.764.6371 Fax: +1.614.718.7187 Email: patt...@oclc.org From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joanna Dyla Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:16 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields The PCC Task Group on AACR2 RDA Acceptable Heading Categories: Recommendation 5.13, reads: Task Group recommendations: 1. Consistently display 040 subfield $e immediately preceding the 040 subfield $c. a. If the subfield is repeated, display in the order each subfield $e was added to the record. 2. Apply this recommendation to the field 040 in the Bibliographic Format as well. 3. Update the MARC documentation for field 040 (Bibliographic Format and Authority Format) to reflect this display change. See the full recommendation under: RDA PCC Proposed Guidelines and Standards -- PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues -- High Priority Recommendations at http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20PCC%20Proposed%20Guidelines%20and%20Standards.html --Joanna -- Joanna K. Dyla Head, Metadata Development Unit Metadata Department Stanford University Libraries 650-723-2529 jd...@stanford.edu On 8/2/2012 7:25 AM, Gary L Strawn wrote: During phase 2 of the manipulation of the LC/NACO authority file for use under RDA (to take place next March, knock on wood): If an AACR2 authority record (AACR2 does not include AACR2-compatible) is otherwise being modified (for example, to change b. in subfield $d of an X00 field to a hyphen) and if the 1XX field in such an otherwise-modified AACR2 record is deemed acceptable for use under RDA (by the lack of any identifiable blocking condition), then the otherwise-modified acceptable AACR2 authority record will be re-coded as RDA. (Under the revised two-phase plan, no AACR2 records are being re-issued solely to re-code to RDA.) I had thought that somewhere in the extensive documentation there was a description of just what re-coded as RDA means but I don't find it in a quick scan. Here's what happens (though you could probably guess): 1) Change 008/10 to z 2) Add 040 $e rda I'll keep looking in the documentation, and add the description of re-coding if I don't eventually find it (or at least move it to a more easily-found place). But meanwhile: The alternatives for the location of $e appear to be: 1) put $e in a constant and predictable place (just before $c) 2) put $e adjacent to (probably before) the $d code for the modifying institution While I don't think the world will spin much faster either way, I prefer putting the subfield in a predictable location, so the eye can be trained to catch it reliably; the institution making the upgrade can always be identified by viewing the record's history. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields I'm sorry, typo there - there is a school of thought that *$e* should precede $c.
[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
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
For the 040, I have been trying to follow the order given in a new RDA workform; that is, $b eng followed by $e rda Don't know if it makes any difference or not what the order is. Carolyn Kadri Head Cataloger Special Collections University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, TX 76016 ka...@uta.edu -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: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 4:48 PM 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 $c [e.g. OCLC #699487827] and some with the subfields in alpha order [e.g. OCLC #780483684]. ??? -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Michael Cohen asked:
Is there a prescribed order to the subfields in 040?
The instructions and form differ. We tend to be monkey see, monkey
do, and LAC (which due to bilingualism has used 040$b for years) has
alphabetic order.
The MARC21 binders show them in alphabetical order. I see no reason
to depart from standard MARC21 practice.
Departures from alphabetic order of subfields happen when new
subfields are added (e.g. 245$h) and when rule changes create a change
in order of data (e.g., 111$n$d). Once upon a time, some systems
rearraned subfields as well as fields if not in alphabetical or
numerical order.
Alphabetical order makes it easier to check for data when revising a
record, and easier to program using the data (which we do; 040$b
determines language of standard notes added to the record).
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
