Re: linking word element needed
But it would perpetuate one of the nastiest MARC21 features: the punctuation at the field or subfield end. Why not include it in $i? Mac
Re: linking word element needed
Johnathan Rockind said:
This seems like a perfectly reasonable and good solution to me,
On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
I think from our discussion on this matter is that RDA needs
another element to record what I will call the linking word or
term in the title.
How does this differ from the MARC solution of:
245$aTitle$i.or,$bAlternate title?
As others have pointed out, this will require a change in ISBD to make
both the linking word and althernate title another element. But it
seems a far better solution to me than coding, which may or may not
translate to what was on the title page for display.
Keeping our several standards in tandem is a major problem. I find it
easiest to begin with MARC, in part because MARC field tags make a
handy shorthand as opposed to the obtuse language of RDA.
Karen Coyle said:
Some people seem to be wanting to *describe* by *transcribing*,
others are concerned about *access*.
In the days of card catalogues, the title main entry, or indented
title below main entry, served successfully as both description and
access. With MARC (from the mid to late sixties), 245$a has served
successfully as both description and access. Why mess with success by
complicating matters? (The 245$a title element has been far more
successful in this dual role the the 440 series element.)
Data is 245$b has been less successfully indexed because of the lack
of a filing indicator for initial articles, and other connecting
words. The creation of a 245$i subfield would solve that problem
nicely. (Some solve it in formatted 505 by $g$t.)
Sometimes the simplist solution is the best solution.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: linking word element needed
It does not differ, it is the same semantic content. Surely, RDA and
MARC need to be compatible. Just as both need to be compatible with
ISBD, if the ISBD elements are still important. And just as both need
to be compatible with FRBR, if the FRBR model is important. (I
realize there is some disagreement in all of this).
But RDA needs to be expressed in language other than MARC. Why?
* Because we increasingly need to deal with data that comes from
outside the library world (and thus, not in MARC)
* Because we increasingly send data to outside the library world, and
into systems that are not MARC systems.
* Because the 'library world' is no longer in fact a discrete place
with clear boundaries. Catalogers and metadata librarians are
increasingly _cataloging and creating metadata_ in non-MARC formats.
This is happening already.
* Because MARC ought to be a data formatting/transmission format, and
our rules or guidelines ought to, of course, be compatible with it--
but ought not to tie us to to it.
* Because right now MARC ends up containing both a specification of
data elements (beyond ISBD), and instructions for their values
(beyond AACR2)---this creates a situation where it is very difficult
to change our practices and standards even in logical ways (because
it is unclear _where_ these practices and standards comes from), and
where it is very difficult to explain what we are doing both to new
entries to the field, and to those 'outside the library world' who
need to both use _and give us_ data. Formatting should be the realm
of MARC, rules or guidelines for data creation should be the realm of
RDA, and the enumeration and relationships of the data elements
themselves should be the realm of ISBD and/or FRBR. MARC must be de-
coupled from RDA---to be sure they must be compatible, but the only
way to start putting MARC in it's place as a formatting/transmission
format is to have RDA not actually use the language of MARC in
talking about elements. I would argue that both should use the
language of ISBD and/or FRBR exclusively. If ISBD and/or FRBR is
insufficient, then this must be noted (and will be noticed when we
commit to this type of care in our language), and changed.
[ I am aware that there is dispute over whether FRBR is needed at
all, with a position which on this list is principally articulated by
Mac saying, ISBD is perfectly sufficient as an enumeration of our
conceptual data model. If this is true, then RDA should _still_ not
be written in the language of MARC, but in the language of ISBD
exclusively. I submit that it is not true, and thus FRBR. In either
case, it is through carefully writing RDA in terms of a proper
standard for conceptual data model that insufficiencies in that
conceptual data model will be discovered and noted--and hopefully
fixed. An important thing to do for the reasons I tried to outline
above-].
Of course, even AACR2 was not written in the language of MARC, was
it? I think it would be a step backwards for RDA to be.
Jonathan
Of course, AACR2 was not expressed in language of MARC either, was it?
On Jul 1, 2007, at 2:30 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Johnathan Rockind said:
This seems like a perfectly reasonable and good solution to me,
On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
I think from our discussion on this matter is that RDA needs
another element to record what I will call the linking word or
term in the title.
How does this differ from the MARC solution of:
245$aTitle$i.or,$bAlternate title?
As others have pointed out, this will require a change in ISBD to make
both the linking word and althernate title another element. But it
seems a far better solution to me than coding, which may or may not
translate to what was on the title page for display.
Keeping our several standards in tandem is a major problem. I find it
easiest to begin with MARC, in part because MARC field tags make a
handy shorthand as opposed to the obtuse language of RDA.
Karen Coyle said:
Some people seem to be wanting to *describe* by *transcribing*,
others are concerned about *access*.
In the days of card catalogues, the title main entry, or indented
title below main entry, served successfully as both description and
access. With MARC (from the mid to late sixties), 245$a has served
successfully as both description and access. Why mess with success by
complicating matters? (The 245$a title element has been far more
successful in this dual role the the 440 series element.)
Data is 245$b has been less successfully indexed because of the lack
of a filing indicator for initial articles, and other connecting
words. The creation of a 245$i subfield would solve that problem
nicely. (Some solve it in formatted 505 by $g$t.)
Sometimes the simplist solution is the best solution.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
Re: linking word element needed
Quoting James Agenbroad [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is there a reason I don't see why we need to distinguish between alternative titles and parallel titles? A parallel title is of equivalent weight to the title proper, but distinct from it. Generally it's provided when the document is addressed equally to different language communities. An alternative title is a second way of naming the document. The trouble (to my eye) is that there are no clear conventions for its use; and tools such as comprehensive bibliographies (e.g. Cambridge bibliography of English literature) generally ignore it in formulating headings under which they list their citations. At least in modern times, alternative titles seem to be just author's or publisher's wimsy (The hobbit, or, There and back again; Eric, or, Little by little); sometimes, the alternative title portion provided an explanation of the main title, just as a subtitle usually does. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: linking word element needed
Quoting Robert Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, there is a difference. Alternative titles and parallel titles aren't worded the same way. There remains the problem of what to do with that pesky little or. And equivalents in other languages; in some languages, more than one (Latin has vel or seu, the latter perhaps more likely). In all cases, the conjunction may appear within the first part of the title proper and not mean that the following is to be considered an alternative title. There remain quite a number of us who still believe in the principles of transcription and authorial/publisher's intent and aren't interested in a solution that dumps or, miniscule as the word may be. Just so. We need to be able to match record to document, document to record, and even match or distinguish between one record and another. Otherwise the notion of controlling duplication of records, while retaining records that are genuinely for different manifestations, is fatally undermined. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: linking word element needed
This seems like a perfectly reasonable and good solution to me, expressed clearly and well. I'm confused why the thread continues after Adam's contribution, ignoring it, and discussing instead why various other solutions are all unsatisfactory? Jonathan On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: I think from our discussion on this matter is that RDA needs another element to record what I will call the linking word or term in the title. To have title proper and alternative title elements is not enough, because the linking word or and its equivalents in other languages need to be included in descriptions and it would be very complicated if not impossible to have a machine supply the correct word in all cases. Title proper: Twelfth night Linking word or term: or Alternative title: What you will Title proper: Charles de Coster Linking word or term: ou Alternative title: La vie est un songe Other title information: biographie Once this linking word element were established, then the issue of how to encode the title in MARC could be resolved. Several different possibilities have been discussed here, and the JSC will need to evaluate them and decide on which one to recommend, and on if any changes to the MARC format are needed to accommodate them. As Kevin points out, the indexing of the MARC encoding could vary from system to system based on the needs of each individual agency, and depending on how the system was configured, various additional access points would or would not be needed. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: linking word element needed
This is, at least as presented, a matter of markup. I'm not sure that markup alone, or this markup in particular, solves the problem that worries me the most, which is trying to get both display and access out of one single set of data elements. I'm still unclear as to what we are trying to accomplish, which should be decided before we determine HOW we will accomplish it. Some people seem to be wanting to *describe* by *transcribing*, others are concerned about *access*. Others have brought up the problem of linking this title to the way that titles are treated in authority records or in other products. Once the goals are determined then there should be the possibility of creating one or more (and hopefully more than one) solutions for coding those decisions. The discussion seems to move directly into coding questions before goals are clarified. I also detect that some members of the list are unhappy with the goals/decisions of RDA, which again is a topic apart from coding or markup issues. What is the rationale for the RDA decision, and should disagreement with that be the basis for formal comments to RDA? kc Jonathan Rochkind wrote: This seems like a perfectly reasonable and good solution to me, expressed clearly and well. I'm confused why the thread continues after Adam's contribution, ignoring it, and discussing instead why various other solutions are all unsatisfactory? Jonathan On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: I think from our discussion on this matter is that RDA needs another element to record what I will call the linking word or term in the title. To have title proper and alternative title elements is not enough, because the linking word or and its equivalents in other languages need to be included in descriptions and it would be very complicated if not impossible to have a machine supply the correct word in all cases. Title proper: Twelfth night Linking word or term: or Alternative title: What you will Title proper: Charles de Coster Linking word or term: ou Alternative title: La vie est un songe Other title information: biographie Once this linking word element were established, then the issue of how to encode the title in MARC could be resolved. Several different possibilities have been discussed here, and the JSC will need to evaluate them and decide on which one to recommend, and on if any changes to the MARC format are needed to accommodate them. As Kevin points out, the indexing of the MARC encoding could vary from system to system based on the needs of each individual agency, and depending on how the system was configured, various additional access points would or would not be needed. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
linking word element needed
I think from our discussion on this matter is that RDA needs another element to record what I will call the linking word or term in the title. To have title proper and alternative title elements is not enough, because the linking word or and its equivalents in other languages need to be included in descriptions and it would be very complicated if not impossible to have a machine supply the correct word in all cases. Title proper: Twelfth night Linking word or term: or Alternative title: What you will Title proper: Charles de Coster Linking word or term: ou Alternative title: La vie est un songe Other title information: biographie Once this linking word element were established, then the issue of how to encode the title in MARC could be resolved. Several different possibilities have been discussed here, and the JSC will need to evaluate them and decide on which one to recommend, and on if any changes to the MARC format are needed to accommodate them. As Kevin points out, the indexing of the MARC encoding could vary from system to system based on the needs of each individual agency, and depending on how the system was configured, various additional access points would or would not be needed. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: linking word element needed
I am beginning to suspect that the difficulties arising for the treatment of the conjunction preceding an alternative title may be why ISBD is formulated to include alternative titles in the title proper. I am not against the JSC's decision to create the new element for the alternative title. But the ensuing discussions have clearly shown how the best of intentions may have unintended consequences or complications. Despite being in the throw it in subfield b camp for many years, I have increasingly made my peace with the alternative title being part of the title proper. The positions advanced by Mac Elrod have merit and are quite similar to those I held myself. In most cases, the first part of the title meets RDA's definition for title proper: the chief title of the resource (i.e., the title normally used when citing the resource). A good colleague has a favorite title for cataloging classes however: 20,000 leagues under the sea, or, David Copperfield / by Robert Benchley. I am not entirely certain that this title is well served by any treatment other than treating the whole thing as title proper. Any truncation is misleading. Granted this is an absurd example, but it exists. The throw it in subfield b solution is increasingly untenable in light of granularity issues for the multiplicity of data elements we are parking in it. The identification of the alternative title as a separate element highlights the need to provide separate subfield coding for both parallel title and other title information along with the new element. This is a job for MARBI to take up however, not the JSC. I am stridently against reducing the conjunction to mere coding at the loss of transcription. It would seem a disservice to either the author's or publisher's intent to excise transcription of it altogether. It is not so much ISBD punctuation to be disregarded in the new age or under the new rules. I suspect it would be a nasty job of software coding to convert a mere code to the appropriate language equivalent of or for all possible languages. Creating a new subfield element to hold the transcribed word is a possibility, especially if it causes the indexing to skip it like the subfield g in formatted 505 fields. I am hesitant however to give unqualified support to that solution in light of Hal Cain's comments about the possibility in Latin of having an alternative title without a linking conjunction. FWIW, Hal's example is a further caution against splitting the alternative title into a separate element, since it will require a good degree of expertise in Latin to identify the two elements. Long enough for thoughts at the close of a Friday, John John Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linking word element needed
Friday, June 29, 2007 At present AACRE defines: 1. Parallel title. The title proper in another language and/or script. and 2. Alternative title. The second part of a title proper that consists of two parts, each part of which is a title; the parts are joined by or or its equivalent in another language (e.g., The tempest, or The enchanted island). If the latter definition were changed to a parallel title in the same language separated from the title proper by or or its equivalent. and the former definition changed to another title in any language and /or script, then the equals sign could used before the alternative title. Is there a reason I don't see why we need to distinguish between alternative titles and parallel titles? Regards, Jim Agenbroad ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) ) ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: linking word element needed
Yes, there is a difference. Alternative titles and parallel titles aren't worded the same way. There remains the problem of what to do with that pesky little or. If we treated them as parallel titles, would we transcribe The tempest = or The enchanted island or perhaps The tempest or = The enchanted island or just drop the or The tempest = The enchanted island ? There remain quite a number of us who still believe in the principles of transcription and authorial/publisher's intent and aren't interested in a solution that dumps or, miniscule as the word may be. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Agenbroad Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 4:37 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] linking word element needed Friday, June 29, 2007 At present AACRE defines: 1. Parallel title. The title proper in another language and/or script. and 2. Alternative title. The second part of a title proper that consists of two parts, each part of which is a title; the parts are joined by or or its equivalent in another language (e.g., The tempest, or The enchanted island). If the latter definition were changed to a parallel title in the same language separated from the title proper by or or its equivalent. and the former definition changed to another title in any language and /or script, then the equals sign could used before the alternative title. Is there a reason I don't see why we need to distinguish between alternative titles and parallel titles? Regards, Jim Agenbroad ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) See what's free at AOL.com http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF0002000503 .
