Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it. It seems to me that since the full-stop is used in ISBD to separate Title proper from Part/section title, it can be considered punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element and omitted. Then we can add the comma's, under the rubric Add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity. So I would imagine most catalogers would transcribe this as: Wollen, wissen, können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze ... --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:42 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Periods in titles Talking about periods ... A colleague just brought the following example to my attention. The title page shows the following: WOLLEN. WISSEN. KÖNNEN. Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit-, Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung English translation: TO WANT. TO KNOW. TO BE ABLE TO. Designing attractive places of work in long-term care, short-term care, transitional care and work as a legal guardian If you want to see the t.p. for yourself, the document is online here: http://www.alter.bfh.ch/fileadmin/wgs_upload/institut_alter/publikationen/Themenheft_A4_HR_dt_web.pdf Now, what about the periods in the title proper? According to the German RAK rules, I would have exchanged the first and second one for a comma, and the last one for a colon to introduce the other title information. So, my solution would have been: Wollen, wissen, können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit-, Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung But now, what's the result according to RDA? The last period obviously still has to go, as RDA says in 1.7.3: Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source, omitting punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element, or as a second or subsequent instance of an element. But I assume that the first and second periods must be retained, as in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it. So, I conclude that the RDA solution is (if we use ISBD punctuation between title proper and other title information): Wollen. Wissen. Können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit-, Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung Would you agree or am I on the wrong track here? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
I agree that the main instructions in RDA would have you retain the periods, but there is an alternative in 1.7.1 that allows a cataloging agency to use other guidelines. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:42 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Periods in titles Talking about periods ... A colleague just brought the following example to my attention. The title page shows the following: WOLLEN. WISSEN. KÖNNEN. Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit-, Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung English translation: TO WANT. TO KNOW. TO BE ABLE TO. Designing attractive places of work in long-term care, short-term care, transitional care and work as a legal guardian If you want to see the t.p. for yourself, the document is online here: http://www.alter.bfh.ch/fileadmin/wgs_upload/institut_alter/publikationen /Themenheft_A4_HR_dt_web.pdf Now, what about the periods in the title proper? According to the German RAK rules, I would have exchanged the first and second one for a comma, and the last one for a colon to introduce the other title information. So, my solution would have been: Wollen, wissen, können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit- , Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung But now, what's the result according to RDA? The last period obviously still has to go, as RDA says in 1.7.3: Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source, omitting punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element, or as a second or subsequent instance of an element. But I assume that the first and second periods must be retained, as in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it. So, I conclude that the RDA solution is (if we use ISBD punctuation between title proper and other title information): Wollen. Wissen. Können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit-, Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung Would you agree or am I on the wrong track here? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
I agree that the main instructions in RDA would have you retain the periods, but there is an alternative in 1.7.1 that allows a cataloging agency to use other guidelines. Thanks, John. Actually, 1.7.1 is a point we are working on right now, but it seems that I hadn't thought far enough here. I now see that the alternative in 1.7.1 could also be used to allow for exchanging punctuation in certain cases, if this is desired. We will have to discuss this. Of course we only want to digress from the standard rules in 1.7.2-1.7.9 when we think this is absolutely necessary. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
I agree with Ben's interpretation of the instruction, i.e., a period is separating punctuation and so is omitted, and then other punctuation is added for clarity; so no need to invoke the 1.7.1 alternative. Although, technically, the parts of a title proper are considered part of the Title Proper element (rather than separate elements), I think the underlying reasoning of this instruction still holds true for these 'part' separators. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it. It seems to me that since the full-stop is used in ISBD to separate Title proper from Part/section title, it can be considered punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element and omitted. Then we can add the comma's, under the rubric Add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity. So I would imagine most catalogers would transcribe this as: Wollen, wissen, können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze ... --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:42 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Periods in titles Talking about periods ... A colleague just brought the following example to my attention. The title page shows the following: WOLLEN. WISSEN. KÖNNEN. Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit-, Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung English translation: TO WANT. TO KNOW. TO BE ABLE TO. Designing attractive places of work in long-term care, short-term care, transitional care and work as a legal guardian If you want to see the t.p. for yourself, the document is online here: http://www.alter.bfh.ch/fileadmin/wgs_upload/institut_alter/publikationen/Th emenheft_A4_HR_dt_web.pdf Now, what about the periods in the title proper? According to the German RAK rules, I would have exchanged the first and second one for a comma, and the last one for a colon to introduce the other title information. So, my solution would have been: Wollen, wissen, können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit-, Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung But now, what's the result according to RDA? The last period obviously still has to go, as RDA says in 1.7.3: Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source, omitting punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element, or as a second or subsequent instance of an element. But I assume that the first and second periods must be retained, as in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it. So, I conclude that the RDA solution is (if we use ISBD punctuation between title proper and other title information): Wollen. Wissen. Können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit-, Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung Would you agree or am I on the wrong track here? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
Ben, in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it. It seems to me that since the full-stop is used in ISBD to separate Title proper from Part/section title, it can be considered punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element and omitted. Then we can add the comma's, under the rubric Add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity. Hm, that's something more to think about. It seems that you and I interpret punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element or as a second or subsequent instance of an element quite differently. I had puzzled it out like this: If there is punctuation (of any kind) on the source of information between things that we record as two elements, it is disregarded. An example for punctuation on the source between two different elements would be e.g. a dash between something that is recorded as title proper and something that is recorded as other title information. An example for punctuation between two instances of the same element would be e.g. a slash or a comma between two places of publication. My understanding is that in these cases we simply ignore the dash, slash, comma (or whatever it is) and record the elements without it. If we use ISBD punctuation, of course we then have to add the prescribed punctuation between these elements. So, I wouldn't leave out the full stop just because it is used in ISBD in a special way. Your reading, on the other hand, is (if I understand it correctly): Leave out punctuation which could be mixed up with prescribed ISBD punctuation, and then add some other punctuation for clarity. I've got to think on this some more ... By the way, I don't like the instruction in 2.3.1.7 (and other similar ones) one little bit, where it says: Use a full stop to separate the common title from the title of the part, section, or supplement. Doesn't RDA claim that it is a content standard, and as such doesn't prescribe a certain way of display (see RDA 0.1: a clear line of separation has been established between the guidelines and instructions on recording data and those on the presentation of data)? But what else is the full stop here if not a matter of display? In my opinion, the rule should only express something like this: If the conditions described in 2.3.1.7 apply, record the title of the part, section, or supplement together with the common title. How this is then presented should be left to the cataloguing agency. If ISBD is followed, then the rules given in Appendix D apply (see D.1.2.2). But if an agency chooses not to use ISBD, and instead display the information differently (e.g. by showing the title of the part below the common title), this should be acceptable in RDA as well. But as the rule in 2.3.1.7 stands, it is not. Oups, it seems I've wandered somewhat from the subject. Sorry about that. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
Heidrun posted:
Now, what about the periods in the title proper? According to the German
RAK rules, I would have exchanged the first and second one for a comma,
and the last one for a colon to introduce the other title information.
SLC did the same as you in AACR2, and will do the same in RDA. We
were to transcribe as found *except* for capitalization and
punctuation in AACR2, and an option allows us to do that in RDA.
We will be leaving in an ISBD mark of punctuation so long as there is
no space before it. The period in ISBD already has no space in front
of it, so IMNSHO should be removed.
The best practice I think is to avoid the use of the same mark of
punctuation with different meanings.
Brackets and ellipses we will transcribe where present, since neither
can now be used in titles with their traditional meanings.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: By the way, I don't like the instruction in 2.3.1.7 (and other similar ones) one little bit, where it says: Use a full stop to separate the common title from the title of the part, section, or supplement. Doesn't RDA claim that it is a content standard, and as such doesn't prescribe a certain way of display (see RDA 0.1: a clear line of separation has been established between the guidelines and instructions on recording data and those on the presentation of data)? But what else is the full stop here if not a matter of display? In my opinion, the rule should only express something like this: If the conditions described in 2.3.1.7 apply, record the title of the part, section, or supplement together with the common title. How this is then presented should be left to the cataloguing agency. If ISBD is followed, then the rules given in Appendix D apply (see D.1.2.2). But if an agency chooses not to use ISBD, and instead display the information differently (e.g. by showing the title of the part below the common title), this should be acceptable in RDA as well. But as the rule in 2.3.1.7 stands, it is not. I think when RDA says that it doesn't dictate display of data, it's probably talking about display of elements in relation to other elements; that is, how the elements are sequenced, what kinds of punctuation or labels are put before elements or in between one element and another. But as Deborah Fritz pointed out, the Title Proper is a *single element*. The different parts of the title proper are not separate RDA elements; rather, the common title, section numbering, and section title are all taken together to form the single element Title Proper. So there needs to be some way to make an intelligible statement out of the character string that is the title proper, thus we are given instructions on using punctuation to separate the parts. While this punctuation convention is taken from ISBD, I don't believe that this really violates the idea of RDA content being free of particular display conventions. In this element, RDA needed to do *something*, and it seems very sensible to do it the ISBD way, since that's already the way it's been done for decades; the title proper element will fit into an ISBD display with no problem, and it can also be used in non-ISBD contexts and still make perfect sense. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: April-30-13 1:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles But as Deborah Fritz pointed out, the Title Proper is a *single element*. The different parts of the title proper are not separate RDA elements; rather, the common title, section numbering, and section title are all taken together to form the single element Title Proper. That does seem to be a weak spot in the current draft Bibframe mapping for some elements, such as Instance Title: http://bibframe.org/vocab/Instance.html where 245$a is mapped, but 245$a $n $p are the three subfields that make up the title proper. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: That does seem to be a weak spot in the current draft Bibframe mapping for some elements, such as Instance Title: http://bibframe.org/vocab/Instance.html where 245$a is mapped, but 245$a $n $p are the three subfields that make up the title proper. That's an age-old problem with library systems, that has irked me to no end. For instance, in OCLC index displays, or in the Voyager indexes that specify title proper only, they use 245 $a, and entirely ignore $n and $p, which are integral parts of the title proper. It makes life very difficult at times! Actually, I would be perfectly happy to see 245 $n and $p made obsolete, moving the data into into 245 $a. That would make more sense to me, instead of trying to get everybody and all systems in the world to understand that the display or indexing of a title proper is incomplete if it's leaving out $n and $p. I don't see any positive functionality of the separate subfielding; there only seems to be a negative effect. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
My earlier justification for replacing periods with commas is perhaps a bit too clever. Though in ISBD, I agree, it's pretty unambiguous that both title and part-title (or, dependent title) are part of the same ISBD element title proper (they are sub-elements though ISBD doesn't use that term), it's less clear to me what RDA means by the instruction to [omit] punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element, or as a second or subsequent instance of an element. If they meant specifically ISBD elements they should have said so. The instructions at 2.3.1.7 certainly seems to treat title and part title as independent elements (if these two titles are grammatically independent of each other, record the common title, followed by the title of the part, section, or supplement. Disregard the order in which the parts of the title are presented on the source of information). But, Leave out punctuation which could be mixed up with prescribed ISBD punctuation, and then add some other punctuation for clarity is really, exactly what I think catalogers should do. I would go even further--assuming that RDA's scope expands beyond ISBD-formatted description--and say, Omit or add punctuation as needed for clarity, and leave it up to the cataloger, or cataloging agency, to decide how best to do this. (I.e., the alternative to 1.7.1ff.) This will certainly lead to some incosistency. Punctuation doesn't effect indexing, so it's a matter of readability. And different catalogers will have, I suspect, different (for lack of a better term) aesthetic sensibilities when it comes to making something readable. But I'm not sure there is a benefit to consistency if it hinders catalogers' abilities to record information in a way that they think is most useful to their community. In my cataloger's judgment, Wollen, wissen, können does a better job than, Wollen. Wissen. Können of communicating what appears on the t.p.: a single three-word title. I can justify that (as I did) by citing a conflict with ISBD punctuation, but that is largely after-the-fact. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 12:28 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles Ben, in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it. It seems to me that since the full-stop is used in ISBD to separate Title proper from Part/section title, it can be considered punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element and omitted. Then we can add the comma's, under the rubric Add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity. Hm, that's something more to think about. It seems that you and I interpret punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element or as a second or subsequent instance of an element quite differently. I had puzzled it out like this: If there is punctuation (of any kind) on the source of information between things that we record as two elements, it is disregarded. An example for punctuation on the source between two different elements would be e.g. a dash between something that is recorded as title proper and something that is recorded as other title information. An example for punctuation between two instances of the same element would be e.g. a slash or a comma between two places of publication. My understanding is that in these cases we simply ignore the dash, slash, comma (or whatever it is) and record the elements without it. If we use ISBD punctuation, of course we then have to add the prescribed punctuation between these elements. So, I wouldn't leave out the full stop just because it is used in ISBD in a special way. Your reading, on the other hand, is (if I understand it correctly): Leave out punctuation which could be mixed up with prescribed ISBD punctuation, and then add some other punctuation for clarity. I've got to think on this some more ... By the way, I don't like the instruction in 2.3.1.7 (and other similar ones) one little bit, where it says: Use a full stop to separate the common title from the title of the part, section, or supplement. Doesn't RDA claim that it is a content standard, and as such doesn't prescribe a certain way of display (see RDA 0.1: a clear line of separation has been established between the guidelines and instructions on recording data and those on the presentation of data)? But what else is the full stop here if not a matter of display? In my
