Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On 08/03/2013 02:02, Robert Maxwell wrote: snip The one core relationship in RDA is to record the relationship between the resource being cataloged and the work manifested in it (see RDA 17.3). There are several ways to do this. One of the ways to do it is by using an authorized access point for the work (see 17.4.2.2). In current practice if there is only one work or expression manifested in the resource being cataloged, the authorized access point for the work is recorded in bibliographic 1XX + 240 (or 130 if there is no principal creator). So in this case, the purpose of 1XX/240 (or 7XX author-title) is to record the relationship of the resource being cataloged with the work contained in it, not to unite manifestations/works/expressions with different titles. In this case the title proper of the manifestation is evidently not the preferred title for the work, so the 1XX/240 is necessary to record the relationship between the resource and the work that is in it. /snip This shows the difference between RDA/FRBR and cataloging rules that came before. RDA/FRBR are philosophical, academic statements while AACR2 and previous rules are pragmatic and based on practical issues. RDA/FRBR posits that every manifestation contains a work, and a specific version of that work, the expression. Therefore, every manifestation must contain the requisite work and expression information, even if there is only one manifestation. Previous rules did not make such a philosophical statement. They began by creating a record for the item, then *if and only if* it turned out that your item were related to records of other items, you would make those relations in various ways. In the physical catalogs (card and book), this was achieved through filing those cards together in different ways, by typing the heading at the top of the card, which would tell the card filers where the card should be placed in the catalog. This system was continued into the OPACs. Therefore, before RDA/FRBR, works and expressions were *arrangements of records* created only when necessary. If not necessary, the cataloger could forget about works and expressions. All very tangible and exceedingly practical. As Robert points out: the purpose of 1XX/240 (or 7XX author-title) is to record the relationship of the resource being cataloged with the work contained in it, not to unite manifestations/works/expressions with different titles and everything becomes much more complex for the cataloger. *Every* manifestation automatically contains a work and expression and therefore, this information must be in the record somewhere. This is definitely more complicated for the cataloger to create, and any real advantages for searchers has never been shown. The traditional FRBR user tasks can now be done using facets by anyone in the world but nobody seems to want to celebrate that success or even want to do it, while the push toward making our catalog records into data is also very doubtful. The example of the typographical error in the title is a great example of all of this: what do you do with a typo in the title? In the past it was simple: you just make an added title with the corrected form, but now this becomes a difference from the ideal/preferred title (title of the work), when that ideal/preferred title doesn't even exist! A metaphysical solution! Not very tangible nor very practical. The final product for the searchers will allow them to find the item by using correct spelling, which is exactly what happens today. They won't notice a thing. Practical concerns have never been RDA/FRBR's strong point however. I can only hope that in the BIBFRAME, they will come up with some method to make the creation of the work, expression and manifestation entities as efficiently as possible with a minimum of duplication. Otherwise, the resulting format will be so complex, no web developer will be able to make heads or tails out of it. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer [weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com] Sent: March-08-13 10:36 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles On 08/03/2013 02:02, Robert Maxwell wrote: snip The one core relationship in RDA is to record the relationship between the resource being cataloged and the work manifested in it (see RDA 17.3). There are several ways to do this. One of the ways to do it is by using an authorized access point for the work (see 17.4.2.2). In current practice if there is only one work or expression manifested in the resource being cataloged, the authorized access point for the work is recorded in bibliographic 1XX + 240 (or 130 if there is no principal creator). So in this case, the purpose of 1XX/240 (or 7XX author-title) is to record the relationship of the resource being cataloged with the work contained in it, not to unite manifestations/works/expressions with different titles. In this case the title proper of the manifestation is evidently not the preferred title for the work, so the 1XX/240 is necessary to record the relationship between the resource and the work that is in it. /snip This shows the difference between RDA/FRBR and cataloging rules that came before. RDA/FRBR are philosophical, academic statements while AACR2 and previous rules are pragmatic and based on practical issues. RDA/FRBR posits that every manifestation contains a work, and a specific version of that work, the expression. Therefore, every manifestation must contain the requisite work and expression information, even if there is only one manifestation. Previous rules did not make such a philosophical statement. They began by creating a record for the item, then *if and only if* it turned out that your item were related to records of other items, you would make those relations in various ways. You don't seem to be aware that AACR2 has two parts. Part 1: describe the resource (which could include data about any FRBR entity in the resource-- work, expression, manifestation, item) Part 2: provide access to the *WORK*. Catalogers have never had a choice about deciding what the work is in a manifestation because that's what determines the main entry heading. RDA takes the existing practice and labels it more concisely as a process of identifying the work in the manifestation rather than as something that creates a file order for a catalog. RDA also makes it a CORE element for the same reason that AACR2 doesn't let catalogers be lazy and not make a decision about main entry (aka identifying the work in a manifestation). In addition, RDA takes the pragmatic step of acknowledging other data scenarios in which authorized access points may not be the only method used to identify entities. Or, as AACR2 20.1 puts it (and I hope this issue is laid to rest once and for all): The rules in part II apply to works and not to physical manifestations of those works, though the characteristics of an individual item are taken into account in some instances. Cataloging has always posited the philosophical idea that every manifestation has a work, and every record has that decision embedded within it. It's only a question about being implicit or explicit about it in terms of encoding and processing of bibliographic information. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
What may be adding to the apparent confusion about the impact of all this
is that the LC-PCC PS on Chapter 17 says Do not apply chapter 17 in the
current implementation scenario.
I'm surprised no one else has pointed that out yet.
Kai
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 01:02:22 +, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu
wrote:
To repeat what Kevin said in a different way:
The one core relationship in RDA is to record the relationship between
the
resource being cataloged and the work manifested in it (see RDA 17.3).
There are several ways to do this. One of the ways to do it is by using
an
authorized access point for the work (see 17.4.2.2). In current practice
if
there is only one work or expression manifested in the resource being
cataloged, the authorized access point for the work is recorded in
bibliographic 1XX + 240 (or 130 if there is no principal creator). So in
this case, the purpose of 1XX/240 (or 7XX author-title) is to record the
relationship of the resource being cataloged with the work contained in
it,
not to unite manifestations/works/expressions with different titles. In
this case the title proper of the manifestation is evidently not the
preferred title for the work, so the 1XX/240 is necessary to record the
relationship between the resource and the work that is in it.
If the preferred title of the work (6.2.2) is exactly the same as the
title proper of the manifestation (2.3.2), then the combination of 1XX +
245 subfield $a suffices to record the relationship between the resource
and the work in the resource and 240 is not necessary. But that
apparently
isn't true in this case.
I confess I agree that 1XX/240 has always been a cockeyed way of doing
this (RDA is no different from AACR2 on this coding) and I'd much rather
we
always coded the authorized access point for the work contained in the
resource in 7XX (with second indicator 2), but unfortunately that isn't
the
current practice.
Bob
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.
-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 07, 2013 2:40 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Kevin said:
In this case under discussion, there IS a difference between the
manifestation and the preferred title of the work, so 240 should be
used.
The function of a 240 is to unite manifestions of works/expressions with
differingn titles. If this is the only manifestation, we would not use
240.
My attitude may be influenced by many of our clients' distaste for 240s
(apart from Shealespeare and music), as not being on the item, so
misleading in brief display when seen first rather than 245.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Kai Stoeckenius
250 Moffitt Library, #33
University of California, Berkeley.
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Yes, I took note of that PS during our local RDA training, and I am quite puzzled by it. Because the fact is, LC *is* implementing Chapter 17, and has been basically forever. They are doing it by the method described in 17.4.2.2 and, sometimes, by the method described in 17.4.2.3. Many of us are, of course, looking forward to the time that we will be using the method described in 17.4.2.1; but that day will have to wait for a while (and depends on the developments in the Bibframe endeavor). Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kai Stoeckenius Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:23 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles What may be adding to the apparent confusion about the impact of all this is that the LC-PCC PS on Chapter 17 says Do not apply chapter 17 in the current implementation scenario. I'm surprised no one else has pointed that out yet. Kai
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On 08/03/2013 17:48, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip You don't seem to be aware that AACR2 has two parts. Part 1: describe the resource (which could include data about any FRBR entity in the resource-- work, expression, manifestation, item) Part 2: provide access to the *WORK*. Catalogers have never had a choice about deciding what the work is in a manifestation because that's what determines the main entry heading. RDA takes the existing practice and labels it more concisely as a process of identifying the work in the manifestation rather than as something that creates a file order for a catalog. RDA also makes it a CORE element for the same reason that AACR2 doesn't let catalogers be lazy and not make a decision about main entry (aka identifying the work in a manifestation). In addition, RDA takes the pragmatic step of acknowledging other data scenarios in which authorized access points may not be the only method used to identify entities. Or, as AACR2 20.1 puts it (and I hope this issue is laid to rest once and for all): The rules in part II apply to works and not to physical manifestations of those works, though the characteristics of an individual item are taken into account in some instances. Cataloging has always posited the philosophical idea that every manifestation has a work, and every record has that decision embedded within it. It's only a question about being implicit or explicit about it in terms of encoding and processing of bibliographic information. /snip Really? There is a part 2 to AACR2? I never got that far into the book! ;-) In my opinion, laziness has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Catalogers were always supposed to check to see if there were other editions of the work and relate those editions using a uniform title when appropriate. If it is not appropriate, such as when there is only a single edition, they can stop and go on to the next item. I call this *efficiency* and not *laziness*. The final product will be exactly the same for the users. It isn't that people will be able to find anything more than they can now. The catalog always was a tool for practical use, primarily by non-librarians, but also by librarians. It was not supposed to be the product of a philosophical and academical exercise, and in fact, there have been periods when the catalog and the cataloging process have been purged of inefficiencies and information deemed superfluous. The reason these reconsiderations have occurred is because the catalog is supposed to be a tool designed to help people find the items they need. As far as people finding WEMI, that can be done now. Technology has made FRBR unnecessary if the purpose is to find, identify, ... but nobody seems to care about that. From my own researches into the history of the catalog, I suspect that people never did want those tasks so badly and there were other reasons why the catalog was built in the way it was, but that is a completely different topic. Adding the FRBR relationships (director, editor, sequel, and so on) is fraught with it own problems, but I have already discussed that at length. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I wish to comment on several aspects of this thread. First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. There are two or three sources of typos: what appears on the item in hand, or the cataloger transcribing the information, or orthographic differences (these, of course, are not typos, but odd spellings that need to be verified). If a [sic] appears next to a typo, I immediately know that the cataloger found it on the item being cataloged; without the [sic] I must look for a 246 and perhaps also a note. If I am in the process of correcting errors in the catalog of which this is one of many, then it is not very helpful to have to hunt through the record to see what the situation is. I wonder how many incorrect corrections will be made because of the lack of [sic]. In terms of adding a 240: While most dissertations are not published, many are. According to RDA, the publication is merely a manifestation of the work, not a new work. If the dissertation had a typo in the title proper, and no 240, what would then be the preferred title of the published dissertation - the title proper of the dissertation, typo and all? No, I think at this point all of us would create a 240 to link the two manifestations. It seems reasonable to simply create a 240 or 130 on the initial encounter, and get it over with. In AACR2, I don't think things would have been much better. How would a dissertation with a typo in the title (or any title with a typo) have been cited in a 7XX field? There are things that the computer makes us think about, that we didn't always have to think about before, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But what is the point of worrying about works, expressions, manifestations, and items, and uniform or preferred titles, and linkages, if it is not to create a collocations, sorts, and displays that a patron can navigate with meaning and ease? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles RDA follows the representation principle. The data describing a resource should reflect the resource's representation of itself. The current way seems to be more explicit. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edumailto:babra...@mit.edu wrote: I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, [sic] ,for bringing gattention to known typos or other minor mistakes in the title. I think most users understand what it means, even the ones who don't know Latin. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137tel:617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:44 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see. Just had one of those. Title was Upnashads. The record also had a 246. The whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer. Do we want to help the patron or not? RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers. It has to be a means to an end: Gee, I am glad I found this. Thanks. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu wrote: RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out 'and' for is. Rather, isn't the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn't it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246tel:%28608%29%20262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861tel:%28608%29%20262-4861 Email: mco
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Really? There is a part 2 to AACR2? I never got that far into the book! ;-) In my opinion, laziness has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Catalogers were always supposed to check to see if there were other editions of the work and relate those editions using a uniform title when appropriate. If it is not appropriate, such as when there is only a single edition, they can stop and go on to the next item. But they haven't stopped. The choice of main entry (just choosing the main author responsible) is still part of the choice for identifying the work. The uniform title choice (or lack of a decision about it) doesn't change the fact that a work exists in a manifestation, and it doesn't change the other decisions that revolve around that fact. There is still a specific choice being made about authorship for the main intellectual or creative content. Even if no other editions exist, it still might be ambiguous as what the work in an item actually is, and who is primarily responsible for it. AACR2 (and mostly copied in RDA) has may situations when catalogers are called upon to tease out the relationships among entities that exist in an item, as well as to do things in a consistent way that is cognizant of relationships between entities in resources in a collection. In other words, works don't just suddenly appear when a cataloger makes a decision about a uniform title. The entities, and the data specific to those entities, will always exist. This fact is always made evident whenever works become subjects of other works, or works are found to be part of a series (the series being a work in its own right), or when works are adapted into other works. When one adds subject headings to a record, one generally says it's the work that has the subject heading. There are a huge number of relationships that can exist in bibliographic records, and there are myriad conventions for indicating those relationships, with an overreliance on free text descriptions of relationships (i.e., which cannot be easily turned into facets or adapted to easy navigation). It's not just about a narrow set of circumstances of editions of a work with different titles. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang’s statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. First of all, I thank for your disagreement. I could not understand [sic] until I became a cataloger. I am not sure if it is because my first language is Chinese. A word explanation seems to be explicit for users. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I wish to comment on several aspects of this thread. ** ** First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang’s statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. ** ** There are two or three sources of typos: what appears on the item in hand, or the cataloger transcribing the information, or orthographic differences (these, of course, are not typos, but odd spellings that need to be verified). If a “[sic]” appears next to a typo, I immediately know that the cataloger found it on the item being cataloged; without the “[sic]” I must look for a 246 and perhaps also a note. If I am in the process of correcting errors in the catalog of which this is one of many, then it is not very helpful to have to hunt through the record to see what the situation is. I wonder how many incorrect “corrections” will be made because of the lack of “[sic].” ** ** In terms of adding a 240: While most dissertations are not published, many are. According to RDA, the publication is merely a manifestation of the work, not a new work. If the dissertation had a typo in the title proper, and no 240, what would then be the preferred title of the published dissertation – the title proper of the dissertation, typo and all? No, I think at this point all of us would create a 240 to link the two manifestations. It seems reasonable to simply create a 240 or 130 on the initial encounter, and get it over with. ** ** In AACR2, I don’t think things would have been much better. How would a dissertation with a typo in the title (or any title with a typo) have been cited in a 7XX field? There are things that the computer makes us think about, that we didn’t always have to think about before, which is not necessarily a bad thing. ** ** But what is the point of worrying about works, expressions, manifestations, and items, and uniform or preferred titles, and linkages, if it is not to create a collocations, sorts, and displays that a patron can navigate with meaning and ease? ** ** Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:55 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles ** ** RDA follows the representation principle. The data describing a resource should reflect the resource's representation of itself. The current way seems to be more explicit. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, [sic] ,for bringing gattention to known typos or other minor mistakes in the title. I think most users understand what it means, even the ones who don't know Latin. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems 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 *Gene Fieg *Sent:* Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:44 AM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see. Just had one of those. Title was Upnashads. The record also had a 246. The whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer. Do we want to help the patron or not? RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers. It has to be a means to an end: Gee, I am glad I found this. Thanks. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edu wrote: RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I'm glad this is still being discussed, so I don't feel like a total fussbudget for pining over a three-letter word. The issue, in my opinion, is not really whether we use sic or some other phrase (though I confess I find sic a wonderfully parsimonious way of indicating an error.) It is, as Michael Borris and others have previously stated, that the presence of some kind of signal that the cataloger found what appears to be an error is most useful when it's right next to the error. I believe this usefulness extends to users and catalogers alike. The current, sic-free approach enshrined by RDA forces people to compare two strings of text and play the One of these things is not like the other game. Which may not be a problem for most titles, but could be a bigger hassle for longer titles or titles in languages other than English (for English-speaking catalogers, that is.) There is also a subtler point, perhaps, to be made. Yesterday Ian Fairclough stated, Personally, I dislike the phrase Title should read. Who are we catalogers to tell people how their creations should read?. I think there is something to this. Sic-ing something just says, This is what it really said, believe it or not. It does not necessarily mean, I know what this should say better than the author does. Which is sometimes true (in the case of typos) and sometimes not (in the case of rap artists' names, neologisms, puns, etc.) --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems 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 Joan Wang Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:11 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. First of all, I thank for your disagreement. I could not understand [sic] until I became a cataloger. I am not sure if it is because my first language is Chinese. A word explanation seems to be explicit for users. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I wish to comment on several aspects of this thread. First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. There are two or three sources of typos: what appears on the item in hand, or the cataloger transcribing the information, or orthographic differences (these, of course, are not typos, but odd spellings that need to be verified). If a [sic] appears next to a typo, I immediately know that the cataloger found it on the item being cataloged; without the [sic] I must look for a 246 and perhaps also a note. If I am in the process of correcting errors in the catalog of which this is one of many, then it is not very helpful to have to hunt through the record to see what the situation is. I wonder how many incorrect corrections will be made because of the lack of [sic]. In terms of adding a 240: While most dissertations are not published, many are. According to RDA, the publication is merely a manifestation of the work, not a new work. If the dissertation had a typo in the title proper, and no 240, what would then be the preferred title of the published dissertation - the title proper of the dissertation, typo and all? No, I think at this point all of us would create a 240 to link the two manifestations. It seems reasonable to simply create a 240 or 130 on the initial encounter, and get it over with. In AACR2, I don't think things would have been much better. How would a dissertation with a typo in the title (or any title with a typo) have been cited in a 7XX field? There are things that the computer makes us think about, that we didn't always have to think about before, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But what is the point of worrying about works, expressions, manifestations, and items, and uniform or preferred titles, and linkages, if it is not to create a collocations, sorts, and displays that a patron can navigate with meaning and ease? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687tel:%28646%29%20312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
In the rare cases when I've seen a [sic] in a display it's been a disservice especially when it's close to the beginning of a title, as it throws off the sort order, and in fact most users are none the wiser and so assume [sic] is part of the title. I have seen titles with unusual spelling that some have interpreted as typos. (Inglourious basterds for lack of a better example). No, I would never put [sic] into the display for this title or the other examples I've seen. RDA's focus is take what you see, accept what you get. That is indeed simpler for both catalogers and endusers, in terms of clarifying expectations when confronted with the data of a transcribed element. Utilizing notes, or annotations on other elements, is something that can and should be fixed in the display. Adding corrected titles satisfies keyword searching needs, as well as title browse lists. What's left is a rather narrow gap of meeting a workflow requirement in spotting problems in the catalog, but surely there are other ways of doing this. Thomas Brenndorfer Gueph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: March-08-13 3:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I'm glad this is still being discussed, so I don't feel like a total fussbudget for pining over a three-letter word. The issue, in my opinion, is not really whether we use sic or some other phrase (though I confess I find sic a wonderfully parsimonious way of indicating an error.) It is, as Michael Borris and others have previously stated, that the presence of some kind of signal that the cataloger found what appears to be an error is most useful when it's right next to the error. I believe this usefulness extends to users and catalogers alike. The current, sic-free approach enshrined by RDA forces people to compare two strings of text and play the One of these things is not like the other game. Which may not be a problem for most titles, but could be a bigger hassle for longer titles or titles in languages other than English (for English-speaking catalogers, that is.) There is also a subtler point, perhaps, to be made. Yesterday Ian Fairclough stated, Personally, I dislike the phrase Title should read. Who are we catalogers to tell people how their creations should read?. I think there is something to this. Sic-ing something just says, This is what it really said, believe it or not. It does not necessarily mean, I know what this should say better than the author does. Which is sometimes true (in the case of typos) and sometimes not (in the case of rap artists' names, neologisms, puns, etc.) --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems 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 Joan Wang Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:11 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. First of all, I thank for your disagreement. I could not understand [sic] until I became a cataloger. I am not sure if it is because my first language is Chinese. A word explanation seems to be explicit for users. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I wish to comment on several aspects of this thread. First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. There are two or three sources of typos: what appears on the item in hand, or the cataloger transcribing the information, or orthographic differences (these, of course, are not typos, but odd spellings that need to be verified). If a [sic] appears next to a typo, I immediately know that the cataloger found it on the item being cataloged; without the [sic] I must look for a 246 and perhaps also a note. If I am in the process of correcting errors in the catalog of which this is one of many, then it is not very helpful to have to hunt through the record to see what the situation is. I wonder how many incorrect corrections will be made because of the lack of [sic]. In terms of adding a 240: While most dissertations are not published, many are. According to RDA, the publication is merely a manifestation of the work, not a new work. If the dissertation had a typo in the title proper, and no 240, what would then be the preferred title
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I have always been told that good data outlives poor systems. Still, you seem to know what you're doing. I'm curious how you're going to manage the de-siccing. You will have to, I presume, look at each instance and decide what to do about it, case-by-case, as (as previously mentioned) some sic's are not necessarily errors, just words or phrases likely to be interpreted as such. Re: Thomas' comment, and in fact most users are none the wiser and so assume [sic] is part of the title. I'm curious where you get this fact. It may be a function of different user bases (something RDA is supposed to be more hospitable to than earlier codes) but I doubt our patrons have trouble understanding what sic means, particularly when it appears right next to a word that looks off. It is after all a rather ubiquitous feature in academic prose. (And if a user, say an undergraduate, doesn't understand it... why, there's an opportunity to learn something useful from the catalog. Imagine that.) Anyways that's enough for now from me on this topic of vital concern to probably nobody. I appreciate people taking the time to read it and respond. Like most RDA issues, this cake was baked years ago. The mandate is, Take what you see and any situation in which the cataloger might be expected or allowed to use their own knowledge and interpretive skills to provide a more useful transcription of a title page is deprecated. b Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems 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 Gary L Strawn Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:50 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles The real-world problem that we have to deal with is that our underdeveloped systems often do not understand that [sic], phrases beginning [i.e., and similar intrusions, are things that should be skipped for indexing purposes. (The NOTIS system did actually know enough to skip these, but that's only one of the many things we've lost in moving forward ...) If we give 245s in this fashion: Litte [i.e., little] whale and the ice Chistopher [sic] Plantin's books of hours Then the left-anchored title index (or keyword phrase) may well contain LITTE I E LITTLE WHALE AND THE ICE and CHISTOPHER SIC PLANTINS BOOKS OF HOURS, which represent neither the title on the item nor the corrected title. We just completed a project here to remove all of the [i.e. constructions from 245 $a and 740 $a. ([sic] is coming soon, once the RDA conversion is complete.) This required a judicious addition of title access points, 240s, and notes. 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 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I'm glad this is still being discussed, so I don't feel like a total fussbudget for pining over a three-letter word. The issue, in my opinion, is not really whether we use sic or some other phrase (though I confess I find sic a wonderfully parsimonious way of indicating an error.) It is, as Michael Borris and others have previously stated, that the presence of some kind of signal that the cataloger found what appears to be an error is most useful when it's right next to the error. I believe this usefulness extends to users and catalogers alike. The current, sic-free approach enshrined by RDA forces people to compare two strings of text and play the One of these things is not like the other game. Which may not be a problem for most titles, but could be a bigger hassle for longer titles or titles in languages other than English (for English-speaking catalogers, that is.) There is also a subtler point, perhaps, to be made. Yesterday Ian Fairclough stated, Personally, I dislike the phrase Title should read. Who are we catalogers to tell people how their creations should read?. I think there is something to this. Sic-ing something just says, This is what it really said, believe it or not. It does not necessarily mean, I know what this should say better than the author does. Which is sometimes true (in the case of typos) and sometimes not (in the case of rap artists' names, neologisms, puns, etc.) --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Yes, you're absolutely right; de-sicing will require re-examination of the item. That's one of the several reasons I've deferred it until the RDA conversion is over. 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 Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:25 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I have always been told that good data outlives poor systems. Still, you seem to know what you're doing. I'm curious how you're going to manage the de-siccing. You will have to, I presume, look at each instance and decide what to do about it, case-by-case, as (as previously mentioned) some sic's are not necessarily errors, just words or phrases likely to be interpreted as such.
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Re: Thomas' comment, and in fact most users are none the wiser and so assume [sic] is part of the title. I'm curious where you get this fact. It may be a function of different user bases We serve users of all ages and all walks of life. Probably many who are not good spellers to begin with. In the example of Inglourious basterds, I checked our record. There is indeed a 246 for the corrected title, so nothing would change with RDA. A better solution would be to utilize the flexibility in online displays and assign annotations on other elements a special place next to the affected element. RDA has three elements that can be brought to bear in the case of a clear mistake in the title proper: Title proper: Heirarchy in organizations Variant title: Hierarchy in organizations Note on title: Title should read: Hierarchy in organizations If Note on title was linked directly to the title element it annotates one could have a record display like: Title proper: Heirarchy in organizations * * (Title should read: Hierarchy in organizations) ... Variant title: Hierarchy in organizations The idea being that the original values in the RDA elements would be kept pure and this information would be brought together by virtue of the encoding used and style sheet applied (it's important to point out that this would be an encoding solution, not an RDA content standard solution). I think this would be very useful if automated and made consistent, because in looking at the list of examples in RDA it seems quite appropriate to flag similar title transcription issues in this way such as title varies slightly. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On 08/03/2013 20:48, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip But they haven't stopped. The choice of main entry (just choosing the main author responsible) is still part of the choice for identifying the work. The uniform title choice (or lack of a decision about it) doesn't change the fact that a work exists in a manifestation, and it doesn't change the other decisions that revolve around that fact. There is still a specific choice being made about authorship for the main intellectual or creative content. Even if no other editions exist, it still might be ambiguous as what the work in an item actually is, and who is primarily responsible for it. AACR2 (and mostly copied in RDA) has may situations when catalogers are called upon to tease out the relationships among entities that exist in an item, as well as to do things in a consistent way that is cognizant of relationships between entities in resources in a collection. /snip So, we see the pronouncements of the purest true believer. It is a fact that a work exists within a manifestation? It is important to keep in mind that this is *not* a fact, but a belief that may or may not be true, much as whether a soul exists in the body of a person. --The reason I am pointing this out by the way, is that my mother-in-law (quite a lady, incidentally) passed away just in the last few days. Her funeral was today-- So, is there is a work dwelling within a manifestation, similar to a soul dwelling within the body? To answer yes or no is merely a matter of faith, not a matter of fact. In my own opinion, it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that doctors create medical care (or catalogers create cataloging practice) that either works in our own world of experience or does not work in our world of experience. The metaphysical world can be left to sort things out for itself. We need to determine whether what we create today--not 30 years in the future--is an improvement over what we have--or does not improve anything at all. Whether we like it or not, all kinds of situations, tools, materials have been left to our keeping. We cannot ignore what we have been left. To do so is simply... crazy. There is something in cataloging called--in my own opinion, the insulting term: legacy data. Maybe it's not everything we would like; we would like more of it and we would like it to be different. Too bad. It is what we have inherited and represents everything that we have. Many others rely on it. Renounce that, ignore it, and we renounce everything. We harm more than just ourselves and all will be left to suffer the consequences. Neither RDA nor FRBR has demonstrated that there is any advantage over what we have now. In fact, I have gone to some pains to demonstrate that there will be tremendous *dis*-advantages compared to what we have today. Plus, if we say that it is important for people to do the FRBR user tasks, they can do them now. Right now. Today. But this is ignored. Therefore, I can only conclude that the FRBR user tasks are unimportant. People haven't been able to do those tasks since keyword was introduced, what was it, over *20 years ago*!? And yet there was no outcry. When facets actually allowed the user tasks again, there was no fanfare. Clearly, *nobody cares* about that. What else can anyone possibly conclude? RDA and FRBR have *never*--absolutely *never*--demonstrated that they will, or can, create something better for the *public* than what we have now. Not in realistic, practical terms. Ever. Only vague graphs and promises. And yet people are supposed to keep the faith that they will make a real, substantive difference. A very sad state of affairs for the cataloging world. Up until FRBR, a work manifested itself only as an arrangement of the records. That's it. Nothing more. If there was only one record, that has always been enough. Nobody has shown any advantage of the added complexity of RDA. Doesn't it make sense to expect that someone should *demonstrate* some practical advantages, somewhere along the way? But that might lead to questions that might puncture the faith. Pretending that there is a spiritual work and expression (it appears that BIBFRAME may even drop something out of this mystical union) is only holding on to a theory that some, but not all, consider to be beautiful. Sooner or later though, the public will speak. And it will be interesting to discover what they have to say. Even if we hear complete silence. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
[RDA-L] Typos in Titles
RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging 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
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I guess my attitude is a bit different. I want to make it clear that there's no attempt on my part to cause trouble, but ... This is one of the problems with RDA. We didn't connect with non-library employed users to find out their perspective. I would interpret this request to mean that the student is concerned about how a typo will reflect upon him. Rather than quote RDA rules, I would give him back the dissertation and suggest that he speak with the office on campus ... perhaps the Grad Office ... and see if he could re-type the typo correctly, have the item rebound, and THEN it could be re-catalogued. As I catalogue theses and dissertations our Grad Office does indeed ask for them back when such things arise. I always willingly comply. It's good PR. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I agree with this as it is not just the catalog that matters. A thesis or dissertation is a permanent item for the person who toiled for many years toward that. So s/he wants it to be as accurate as can be. Let the Grad school fix the error before it is cataloged. --angelina Angelina Joseph Cataloging Librarian Ray Kay Eckstein Law Library Marquette University Milwaukee, WI 53201 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jerri Swinehart [swine...@oakland.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 9:14 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I guess my attitude is a bit different. I want to make it clear that there's no attempt on my part to cause trouble, but ... This is one of the problems with RDA. We didn't connect with non-library employed users to find out their perspective. I would interpret this request to mean that the student is concerned about how a typo will reflect upon him. Rather than quote RDA rules, I would give him back the dissertation and suggest that he speak with the office on campus ... perhaps the Grad Office ... and see if he could re-type the typo correctly, have the item rebound, and THEN it could be re-catalogued. As I catalogue theses and dissertations our Grad Office does indeed ask for them back when such things arise. I always willingly comply. It's good PR. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see. Just had one of those. Title was Upnashads. The record also had a 246. The whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer. Do we want to help the patron or not? RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers. It has to be a means to an end: Gee, I am glad I found this. Thanks. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.eduwrote: RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging 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 -- 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.
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, [sic] ,for bringing gattention to known typos or other minor mistakes in the title. I think most users understand what it means, even the ones who don't know Latin. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems 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 Gene Fieg Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:44 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see. Just had one of those. Title was Upnashads. The record also had a 246. The whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer. Do we want to help the patron or not? RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers. It has to be a means to an end: Gee, I am glad I found this. Thanks. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu wrote: RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out 'and' for is. Rather, isn't the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn't it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246tel:%28608%29%20262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861tel:%28608%29%20262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto: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.
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
This is a rule discussion derived from the issue. It is between catalogers. No indication to quote the rule to the student. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Jerri Swinehart swine...@oakland.eduwrote: I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? Thanks, Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jerri Swinehart [swine...@oakland.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I agree with Jenifer's favoring 240 over 246 for the proper form of title. In support, check out n 84105541 in OCLC NAF: 1001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke 4001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plain and easy introduction to practical music Of course in Morley's time, the former title was considered proper spelling, and the title in the above 400 would have been considered riddled with typos. Any later edition reading Plain and easy... would be cataloged with the uniform, er, preferred title Plaine and easie.. as a 240, not as a variant title. I see a similar analogy to the erroneous dissertation title we're discussing. The work originally intended by the creator would have had the properly spelled title. Practically, I side with Angelina (and reinforced by others) that if a corrected title can be replaced by Student or Grad Office prior to cataloging, that would be best. But if not, then I'd opt for the 240 solution-- but not 246, for the reasons that others have argued. Rick McRae Catalog / Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music (585) 274-1370 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenifer K Marquardt Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? Thanks, Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jerri Swinehart [swine...@oakland.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
And this example is a reflection of orthographic reform. Does it fit the question asked? On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM, McRae, Rick rmc...@esm.rochester.eduwrote: I agree with Jenifer's favoring 240 over 246 for the proper form of title. In support, check out n 84105541 in OCLC NAF: 1001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke 4001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plain and easy introduction to practical music Of course in Morley's time, the former title was considered proper spelling, and the title in the above 400 would have been considered riddled with typos. Any later edition reading Plain and easy... would be cataloged with the uniform, er, preferred title Plaine and easie.. as a 240, not as a variant title. I see a similar analogy to the erroneous dissertation title we're discussing. The work originally intended by the creator would have had the properly spelled title. Practically, I side with Angelina (and reinforced by others) that if a corrected title can be replaced by Student or Grad Office prior to cataloging, that would be best. But if not, then I'd opt for the 240 solution-- but not 246, for the reasons that others have argued. Rick McRae Catalog / Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music (585) 274-1370 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenifer K Marquardt Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? Thanks, Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jerri Swinehart [ swine...@oakland.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu -- 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.
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On 07/03/2013 18:49, Jenifer K Marquardt wrote: snip Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? /snip The purpose of the uniform title is to bring together the same work when the titles vary. It is an organizing device. Therefore, the title on the physical piece may be The tragicall story of Hamlet, prince of Denmark but the uniform title ensures that people do not have to search under T to find Hamlet. The corrected title is simply that: it ensures that someone does not have to look under a typographical error to find an item. So, following the example above, if the title appeared as The tregicall story of Hamlet... there would be a corrected title and a uniform title. If an item comes out in only a single edition (or manifestation), there is no need for a 240. Naturally, this practice may be going overboard with RDA and FRBR since now everything supposedly has work, expression, manifestation and item qualities. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Just looking at the question practically: wouldn't using a 240 instead of a 246--though perhaps correct from the standpoint of RDA--require more authority work? And, since most libraries index 130, 24x, and most of the 7xx fields together in their title index, would that work be worth the effort in terms of better user outcomes? Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems 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 Gene Fieg Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:07 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles And this example is a reflection of orthographic reform. Does it fit the question asked? On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM, McRae, Rick rmc...@esm.rochester.edumailto:rmc...@esm.rochester.edu wrote: I agree with Jenifer's favoring 240 over 246 for the proper form of title. In support, check out n 84105541 in OCLC NAF: 1001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke 4001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plain and easy introduction to practical music Of course in Morley's time, the former title was considered proper spelling, and the title in the above 400 would have been considered riddled with typos. Any later edition reading Plain and easy... would be cataloged with the uniform, er, preferred title Plaine and easie.. as a 240, not as a variant title. I see a similar analogy to the erroneous dissertation title we're discussing. The work originally intended by the creator would have had the properly spelled title. Practically, I side with Angelina (and reinforced by others) that if a corrected title can be replaced by Student or Grad Office prior to cataloging, that would be best. But if not, then I'd opt for the 240 solution-- but not 246, for the reasons that others have argued. Rick McRae Catalog / Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music (585) 274-1370tel:%28585%29%20274-1370 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenifer K Marquardt Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles Hello, everyone. What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240? Thanks, Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jerri Swinehart [swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the Grad office for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would catalog it. Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served here. Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. Thank you. Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto: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.
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Ben said:
I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the
device, [sic] ,for bringing attention to known typos or other
minor mistakes in the title. I think most users understand what it
means, even the ones who don't know Latin.
Ben, I agree with you absolutely that removing the practice of
correcting in situ was a mistake, but I think the reason is simple.
RDA envisions harvesting data and using it as found, thus the
acceptance of strange capitalization.
I don't get it. It is more labour intensive to work around this
lacuna than to apply it.
If we do move to dispersed data collected from the cloud, the form of
the transcribed title will be outside our control. I don't look
forward to that day.
Some clients spell check their records, and ask for corrections, even
when the alternate spelling to which they object is on the title page.
Having that [sic] tells us whether to do a 246 or change the 245.
As outsourcers we can't go pull the item off the shelf to check. We
may have to start asking for scans before we correct a 245.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Jenifer asked:
Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC
field 246 rather than in the 240?
There is one very practical reason. All of our clients index 246.
Many do not index 240 because of the useless ones for indexes (e.g.,
Works ...). Some clients ask that distinctive 240s be made 730s for
that reason, as well as not wanting something not on the item in brief
display.
For us, many RDA provisions reflect a lack of direct experience of
library needs we get from client feedback.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
In Bib. Format Standards, the section under field 246, 2nd Indicator blank, use for corrected forms of titles has an example for correction of mis-spelling, so it does not appear to me there is a problem here. Even if it goes beyond the spelling out or not of a word, it's still a variation from the title, where no type is specified. I think putting sic, or equivalent English in brackets is also helpful in addition to the use of 246 field. The suggestion to send the thesis back to be corrected and rebound confuses the keeper/recorder role of the librarian with creation and acceptance of the thesis. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edu 3/7/2013 6:49 AM RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging 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
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On 3/7/2013 9:47 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: This is a rule discussion derived from the issue. It is between catalogers. No indication to quote the rule to the student. Might you not find this patron/student asking you to explain *why* you are refusing to make the requested correction and instead asking them to have the item reprinted first? -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
It seems to me there are two separate issues here. The first has to do with letting the student/institution correct the title and re-issue the resource. That would happen outside the cataloging process and RDA doesn't really come into play. (I suppose technically this would be a new manifestation, but that may be moot since the old manifestation wouldn't exist anymore.) The other issue is if you catalog the current manifestation with the typo in the title proper. I think it is possible to have all three fields: 1) You'd have a 245 where you transcribe the Title Proper of the Manifestation as it appears, with the typo. 2) You'd also have a 246 where you can enter the Variant Title of the Manifestation (which is the Title Proper of the Manifestation with the typo corrected). 3) You *can* also have a 240 with the Preferred Title of the Work. And the title of the work *can* be identical in content to the Title Proper of the Manifestation, or to a corrected version of it (a Variant Title of the Manifestation). But in FRBR world I think it is conceptually a different element. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is, When you say real title I think it is important to distinguish between real title of the manifestation versus real title of the work. If we're talking about manifestation, RDA defines variant title as including corrected versions of titles (RDA 2.6.3.1. e)). So by RDA's definition, a corrected typo is a variation of the real title--of the manifestation. It is in the same category as spelling out and for ampersand. Meanwhile, your Preferred Title of the Work may be identical in content to either the Title Proper of the Manifestation or a corrected Variant of it. As some have pointed out, in reality, if the 240 is going to be identical in content to either the 245 or the 246, it is not typical to include the 240. This might be driven by practical reasons: the 240 in this case may be seen as unnecessary because it won't increase access, provide any collocation, aid in selection, etc. (but it does increase workload). But I don't see why--at least from a theoretical standpoint--we couldn't have all three (245, 246, 240) if we wanted to. They are conceptually different elements. (I'll also note that Preferred Title of the Work is a core element in RDA.) Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? So I say, couldn't it be both? Consider the case of a manifestation that has a typo in the title proper *and* it just so happens that the work embodied by this manifestation also has other expressions/manifestations out there. Wouldn't you have all three (245, 246, 240)? The 245 would be for the title proper with typo, the 246 would be for the corrected title proper, and the 240 would be for the work title. Here, the work title * might* be identical to the 246, *or* it might be identical to a 245/246 from one of the *other *manifestations out there. Arthur Liu MLS Candidate Simmons College On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: Just looking at the question practically: wouldn't using a 240 instead of a 246--though perhaps correct from the standpoint of RDA--require more authority work? And, since most libraries index 130, 24x, and most of the 7xx fields together in their title index, would that work be worth the effort in terms of better user outcomes? ** ** ** ** Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems 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 *Gene Fieg *Sent:* Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:07 PM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles ** ** And this example is a reflection of orthographic reform. Does it fit the question asked? On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM, McRae, Rick rmc...@esm.rochester.edu wrote: I agree with Jenifer's favoring 240 over 246 for the proper form of title. In support, check out n 84105541 in OCLC NAF: 1001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke 4001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plain and easy introduction to practical music Of course in Morley's time, the former title was considered proper spelling, and the title in the above 400 would have been considered riddled with typos. Any later edition reading Plain and easy... would be cataloged with the uniform, er, preferred title Plaine and easie.. as a 240, not as a variant title. I see a similar analogy to the erroneous dissertation title we're discussing. The work originally intended by the creator
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
RDA-L readers, Jenifer Marquardt asked Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? Field 240, Uniform Title, is always associated with a 1XX field. If no 1XX field is present, the data is tagged 130. Thus, field 240 is always an appendage to an *author* field, a name heading plus uniform title (in AACR2-speak), that is, a name-title entry (in more common parlance among catalogers). See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd240.html Uniform title for an item when the bibliographic description is entered under a main entry field that contains a personal (field 100), corporate (110), or meeting (111) name. Field 246, on the other hand, is a Varying Form of Title field: Varying forms of the title appearing on different parts of an item or a portion of the title proper, or an alternative form of the title when the form differs substantially from the title statement in field 245 and if they contribute to the further identification of the item. http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd246.html In terms of literary warrant: The corrected form of title often lacks it, in the sense that the title as transcribed, error and all, is the only existing warrant. The cataloger is exercising judgment in providing a correction. That is different from establishing the corrected title as a uniform title. You really should have justification in a documentable source in order to do that. RDA does not give instruction on using [sic] (in contrast to AACR2 1.0F1) and there are various reasons why doing so is a good/bad idea. So no wonder we argue the case back and forth! My favorite example is a compact disc sound recording with title The Dutchess (actually, the name of the artist). That is not a typo, so it would not be appropriate to correct it. You can however add [sic] to indicate that you haven't introduced a typo in your transcription, in case anyone should wonder. But that has gone out of fashion, so to speak, along with use of other Latin abbreviations. Personally, I dislike the phrase Title should read. Who are we catalogers to tell people how their creations should read? I hope this helps. Does it answer the question? - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
All I am saying is about a title with wrong spellings in a manifestation. This is an issue derived from the mentioned thesis. I do not have any offense on the solution of correcting the title through Graduate Office. The thing also could happen in other cases in addition to a thesis. Does that make sense? Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Lisa Hatt hattl...@fhda.edu wrote: On 3/7/2013 9:47 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: This is a rule discussion derived from the issue. It is between catalogers. No indication to quote the rule to the student. Might you not find this patron/student asking you to explain *why* you are refusing to make the requested correction and instead asking them to have the item reprinted first? -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Perhaps this is a silly question, but suppose the title were repeated elsewhere in the resource (say, t.p. verso), could that form be used and the typo-d form on the t.p. disregarded altogether (or referenced in a 246 with a $i indicating its source)? Thanks, Jasmin Jasmin Nof Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 F. 215-573-9610 j...@upenn.edu On 3/7/2013 2:09 PM, Jack Wu wrote: In Bib. Format Standards, the section under field 246, 2nd Indicator blank, use for corrected forms of titles has an example for correction of mis-spelling, so it does not appear to me there is a problem here. Even if it goes beyond the spelling out or not of a word, it's still a variation from the title, where no type is specified. I think putting sic, or equivalent English in brackets is also helpful in addition to the use of 246 field. The suggestion to send the thesis back to be corrected and rebound confuses the keeper/recorder role of the librarian with creation and acceptance of the thesis. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu mailto:j...@franciscan.edu Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edu 3/7/2013 6:49 AM RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging 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
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Not to dwell on this overmuch, but, in response to Ian's: Field 240, Uniform Title, is always associated with a 1XX field. If no 1XX field is present, the data is tagged 130. Thus, field 240 is always an appendage to an *author* field, a name heading plus uniform title (in AACR2-speak), that is, a name-title entry (in more common parlance among catalogers). See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd240.html Uniform title for an item when the bibliographic description is entered under a main entry field that contains a personal (field 100), corporate (110), or meeting (111) name. In the dissertation case, the title is crucially connected to the 1xx field. (Why the author would be so recklessly remiss as to not proofread the title-page of his/her own thesis is another question entirely, outside the scope of our discussion). As stated before, I think we catalogers should have the ability to judge what the correct title is if the typo is obviously understood (e.g., too instead of to in grammatical context, but not moose for goose) and record that as a 240 for the work title, keeping transcription (without [sic] in my opinion) in 245. For such a standalone work as a dissertation, I wouldn't bother with creating a name-title record for this 100/240 in the authority file (unless the diss. were translated or made into an opera or comic book or something). Now I'm grafting Jasmin's question into this message: Perhaps this is a silly question, but suppose the title were repeated elsewhere in the resource (say, t.p. verso), could that form be used and the typo-d form on the t.p. disregarded altogether (or referenced in a 246 with a $i indicating its source)? My vote: yes, by all means. Not a silly question-a plausible circumstance! Thanks, Rick McRae Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music
[RDA-L] Sic 'em! (was RE: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles)
Not to continue to beat a horse I suspect is already dead, but sic is not the same type of Latin abbreviation as the s.l. or et al. of blessed recent memory. In point of fact, it appears in most English dictionaries including Webster's and the OED, the latter of which defines it as, A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous in the original, or to guard against the supposition of misquotation. Exactly the way it is used (was used) by catalogers. Only once in my cataloging career have I been asked by a user about the presence of a [sic] in a record. And as it happened it wasn't that he didn't understand what it meant, it was that he disagreed that it was an error (one of those borderline cases of using a possessive apostrophe after a word that ends in a voiced sibilant.) All of which is to say while [sic] can be misused by overfussy catalogers, that in itself does not warrant getting rid of the practice altogether. b Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems 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 Ian Fairclough Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:42 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles RDA-L readers, Jenifer Marquardt asked Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? Field 240, Uniform Title, is always associated with a 1XX field. If no 1XX field is present, the data is tagged 130. Thus, field 240 is always an appendage to an *author* field, a name heading plus uniform title (in AACR2-speak), that is, a name-title entry (in more common parlance among catalogers). See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd240.html Uniform title for an item when the bibliographic description is entered under a main entry field that contains a personal (field 100), corporate (110), or meeting (111) name. Field 246, on the other hand, is a Varying Form of Title field: Varying forms of the title appearing on different parts of an item or a portion of the title proper, or an alternative form of the title when the form differs substantially from the title statement in field 245 and if they contribute to the further identification of the item. http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd246.html In terms of literary warrant: The corrected form of title often lacks it, in the sense that the title as transcribed, error and all, is the only existing warrant. The cataloger is exercising judgment in providing a correction. That is different from establishing the corrected title as a uniform title. You really should have justification in a documentable source in order to do that. RDA does not give instruction on using [sic] (in contrast to AACR2 1.0F1) and there are various reasons why doing so is a good/bad idea. So no wonder we argue the case back and forth! My favorite example is a compact disc sound recording with title The Dutchess (actually, the name of the artist). That is not a typo, so it would not be appropriate to correct it. You can however add [sic] to indicate that you haven't introduced a typo in your transcription, in case anyone should wonder. But that has gone out of fashion, so to speak, along with use of other Latin abbreviations. Personally, I dislike the phrase Title should read. Who are we catalogers to tell people how their creations should read? I hope this helps. Does it answer the question? - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.commailto:ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
MARC field 245 is for identifying the *manifestation* (RDA 2.3). You use what is found on the preferred source of the manifestation, typos and all. You also need to identify the *work* (RDA 6.2). In our current environment, for the typical book (including dissertations) that's going to have a creator's name as part of the access point, that means there must be a MARC field 240 for the preferred title, if it differs from the title of the manifestation. The preferred title of the work can come from any source; it does not depend entirely on the sole manifestation. In this case under discussion, there IS a difference between the manifestation and the preferred title of the work, so 240 should be used. A note may also be given about the typo (RDA 2.20.2.4), but is not required. (Personally, I would give the note.) Whether this is done via 246 or 500 could be debated. 246 is not really essential for access, since the correct form of the title will be in the 240. 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! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jasmin Nof Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:37 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles Perhaps this is a silly question, but suppose the title were repeated elsewhere in the resource (say, t.p. verso), could that form be used and the typo-d form on the t.p. disregarded altogether (or referenced in a 246 with a $i indicating its source)? Thanks, Jasmin Jasmin Nof Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 F. 215-573-9610 j...@upenn.edumailto:j...@upenn.edu On 3/7/2013 2:09 PM, Jack Wu wrote: In Bib. Format Standards, the section under field 246, 2nd Indicator blank, use for corrected forms of titles has an example for correction of mis-spelling, so it does not appear to me there is a problem here. Even if it goes beyond the spelling out or not of a word, it's still a variation from the title, where no type is specified. I think putting sic, or equivalent English in brackets is also helpful in addition to the use of 246 field. The suggestion to send the thesis back to be corrected and rebound confuses the keeper/recorder role of the librarian with creation and acceptance of the thesis. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu 3/7/2013 6:49 AM RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging 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.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Kevin said:
In this case under discussion, there IS a difference between the
manifestation and the preferred title of the work, so 240 should be
used.
The function of a 240 is to unite manifestions of works/expressions
with differingn titles. If this is the only manifestation, we would
not use 240.
My attitude may be influenced by many of our clients' distaste for
240s (apart from Shealespeare and music), as not being on the item, so
misleading in brief display when seen first rather than 245.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
Mac Elrod wrote: Kevin said: In this case under discussion, there IS a difference between the manifestation and the preferred title of the work, so 240 should be used. The function of a 240 is to unite manifestions of works/expressions with differingn titles. If this is the only manifestation, we would not use 240. My attitude may be influenced by many of our clients' distaste for 240s (apart from Shealespeare and music), as not being on the item, so misleading in brief display when seen first rather than 245. No, the function of the 240 (in RDA records) is to give the name of the work, if that name is different from the title proper in the 245 field. The problem we have is that for the time being we're stuck with a data structure that was designed for printing catalog cards. The technology of card catalogs is very, very different from entity-relationship modeling, which is the main way we conceive of data in bibliographic databases. For filing purposes, MARC 245 is expected to be the established form of the title if: - there is no 1XX field, OR - there is a 1XX field but NOT a 240 field. MARC 245 is expected to be just a variant access point if: - there is a 1XX field, AND - there is a 240 field. There is no way that 245 can be BOTH the name of the work AND the title proper of the manifestation if there is a difference between the two. Actually, I think we should consider ourselves lucky we've been able to keep MARC working as well as it does for us, seeing how much we're expecting the data to do, beyond what was expected close to half a century ago. In order to have the data migrate cleanly to a format that's more RDA-friendly, the 240 field is essential in a case like this. If your clients have distaste for the 240 field, I question how well they understand or care how bibliographic data works. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
