Am 25.09.2012 18:16, schrieb Brenndorfer, Thomas:
There is nothing simpler or more modular than:
* Entity -- has several attributes (which can be used for display,
naming, description, filtering, searching)
* Entity can have relationship to other entities (which assists in
exploring similar
On 25/09/2012 18:16, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
Currently, RDA authority records are undergoing such a change. Thousands of
records have already replaced existing AACR2 authority records, and many of
the new records have new RDA data fields that have all the hallmarks of
controlled
James Weinheimer wrote:
...
I consider that *if* the rules were coded correctly (DocBook for example),
stylesheets could merge them as you wished. So in theory, a cataloger who
happened to be working on a video of an Arabic scholar discussing the law,
the cataloger could in essence, merge
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
[e...@biblio.tu-bs.de]
Sent: September-26-12 3:37 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging
26.09.2012 14:46, Brenndorfer, Thomas:
The status quo assumes we have to get main and added entries correct,
and punctuation and order of elements correct, and so on, as the
primary baseline to measure compliance with standards-- but this
approach doesn't address what's possible with newer
On 26/09/2012 14:35, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote:
I consider that *if* the rules were coded correctly (DocBook for example),
stylesheets could merge them as you wished. So in theory, a cataloger who
happened to be working on a video of an Arabic scholar discussing
Hi, Thomas, James, and all:
Thanks a billion again for the brilliant discussions that you shared to the
list.
I agreed with Thomas at the highest level of abstraction it is as simple as
entity, attribute, and relationship. To make it extensible, we need to add
scheme to let apps and people know
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote:
The qualities one would look for in finding ways to expedite retrospective
cleanup is the use of batch change tools, and good advanced search (at the
SQL level ideally) tools for catalogers.
On 24/09/2012 22:19, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote:
In turn, I hope this helps you understand the importance of consistency in
library catalogs and that to break that consistency has consequences,
some of which may be difficult to foresee even for catalogers.
We must also
Bernhard offered an excellent reply. I want only to mention:
On 24/09/2012 23:25, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
There is nothing new being added here. Retrospective conversion will
always be an issue with every new code or tag. This doesn’t begin or
end with RDA.
/snip
Absolutely true. In
Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:22 AM, James Weinheimer:
Finally, the less access is not a false premise but an indisputable fact.
That must be acknowledged. To maintain that it is not less access is to
ignore reality. Perhaps some may claim that it is a sad, necessary step
toward the radiant
...
snip
The more we get data in this form, the ***EASIER*** it will become. The more
we move to what is in RDA, with its database-friendly (and therefore
ultimately user-friendly) approach, the ***EASIER*** it will become.
Perpetuating bad practice for some false premise of “less access”
Perpetuating bad practice for some false premise of less access
based upon functionality that is entirely optional until one is ready
is incredibly bad advice.
Did Jim advise to stick with bad practice?
No, but he had the temerity to appear to be questioning part of the sanctity of
FRBR,
On 25/09/2012 15:33, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
In your case of 70% success on a conversion project, you also indicated that
this was also purely an automated conversion. I'm not under any such
illusions-- to get to 100% requires many reports on the data, and the listing
of all missing
and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: September 25, 2012 10:15 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 25/09/2012 15:33, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
In your case of 70% success on a conversion project
On 25/09/2012 16:32, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
James, you’ve missed my main point---
Manual intervention occurs already.
It has to – system upgrades often involve invoking new features,
sometimes based on long stagnant data.
Systems migrations to entirely new systems
I understand about manual interventions and I discussed them at some length in
my podcast. But as I pointed out there, using different words: there are
manual interventions and MANUAL INTERVENTIONS. If the relator codes are to be
made useful, there must be a number of MANUAL INTERVENTIONS,
On 23/09/2012 19:14, Amanda Xu wrote:
snip
Great discussions again! You are right that we need to put
user-centered design into consideration when we decide what to give
description for and how to render it, e.g. relator.
We've been dealing with legacy compatibility for many years, e.g.
24.09.2012 09:47, James Weinheimer:
I am a little confused. Are you saying that if people search for John
Huston *as a film director* in our catalogs, they should *not*
expect to find the films in which he was a director? Because it is a
fact that the public will not find them after RDA is
There are four kinds of cases that we need to act upon so as to add a relator
code to 100, etc. fields in a bib consistently across result set including film
director:
1) on-fly rendering of relator code for existing MARC data being asked for use
based on rules that many discussed here already
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: September 24, 2012 3:47 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
...
I am a little confused. Are you
: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:58 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
Do you apply this same thinking to any kind of authorship/creating, Mike?
No. Did I indicate that I do? I thought that very clearly referring to film and
music terms might be a signal
On 24/09/2012 15:02, Amanda Xu wrote:
snip
There are four kinds of cases that we need to act upon so as to add a
relator code to 100, etc. fields in a bib consistently across result
set including film director:
1) on-fly rendering of relator code for existing MARC data being asked
for use
On 24/09/2012 15:19, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
In the case of relationship designators/relator codes for films -- if the data
already exists (whether in IMDB or another database or with libraries having
already done the work with $4 codes), then the technical burden shifts to
finding
Public Library
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: September 24, 2012 10:33 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 24/09/2012 15:19
James Weinheimer wrote:
In turn, I hope this helps you understand the importance of consistency in
library catalogs and that to break that consistency has consequences,
some of which may be difficult to foresee even for catalogers.
We must also understand that progress is *always* going to
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: September 24, 2012 4:11 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 24/09/2012 16:49, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
RDA has an optional addition: relationship
On 22/09/2012 18:22, Amanda Xu wrote:
snip:
James:
For a beautiful Saturday morning in the East Coast, your messages
provoked our imagination at work.
As far as I am concerned when giving description to the film director
of a movie, we just need to markup it using standard vocabularies for
Great discussions again! You are right that we need to put user-centered
design into consideration when we decide what to give description for and how
to render it, e.g. relator.
We've been dealing with legacy compatibility for many years, e.g.
reclassification from DDC to LCC, re-cat serials
On 21/09/2012 18:28, Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
On 9/21/12 1:13 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
This is very interesting, but how will it work in the real world?
Let's assume that this has all been done with an acceptable
percentage of the records: 60%? 70%? 80%? You are working as a
reference
Actually there could be another answer to go the catalog: To look for, I've
forgotten the term, the equivalent of a current bibliography of his movies
or even a biography on Eastwood, which would most likely list his movies.
Whether the person finds the list in a book, with the library's discovery
James:
For a beautiful Saturday morning in the East Coast, your messages provoked our
imagination at work.
As far as I am concerned when giving description to the film director of a
movie, we just need to markup it using standard vocabularies for data reuse,
etc. This can retrospectively
We are weaving the path that you described behind the scene. The discovery
systems are binding the complexity based on the models, rules, etc. that we use
and the standard way we them markup, etc., hopefully pre-processed ahead of
time and yet kept up to date just like those mobile apps in App
On 21/09/2012 00:07, Kelley McGrath wrote:
snip
I sometimes wonder what the silent majority on lists thinks. There are
definitely people interested in trying to insert this kind of data into
existing records. Many moving image (and music) catalogers are very
interested in relator terms and
-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 21/09/2012 00:07, Kelley McGrath wrote:
snip
I sometimes wonder what the silent majority on lists thinks. There are
definitely people interested in trying to insert this kind of data into
existing records. Many moving image (and music) catalogers are very
I did some training on MARC 21 for an adcemic institution in the South East
of England. When I was getting all lyrical about the potential of the notes
fields to contain the names of actors directors etc - I was politely informed
that they had discussed this with the academic staff involved
Lead trainer
Sherrington Sanders
From: James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2012, 9:13
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
On 21/09/2012 00:07, Kelley McGrath wrote:
snip
I sometimes wonder what the silent
I believe my initial response to James' initial posting concerning consistency
may have started some controversy, which is not my intention. In response to
his post below, I must add, in my view, the patron usually isn't looking for
any exhaustive listing but only interested in a particular
Assuming relator terms or role indicators are immensely helpful, all the more
important they be consistently and inclusively applied throughout the catalog.
Is LC going to retrospectively add them, OCLC? At present it's 270 million
records without relator terms, how many with? Even if OCLC can
Mike:
I encountered similar situation for classical music collections in fall 2010
when I tested RDA for potable music records in Internet Archives, YouTube, etc.
What I did was to add library holdings into the subscription packages that
music teacher paid for her class instead of
Mike:
Please be positive. It'll be alright and much sooner than you stated.
Thanks!
Amanda Xu Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Mike Tribby mike.tri...@quality-books.com wrote:
Assuming relator terms or role indicators are immensely helpful, all the
more important they
Jack:
I called the particular instance as a signal, which I named it as the path to
discover, a.k.a. signaling pathways.
I did some initial design this summer using entity graphs from Microsoft
Academic Search, user social interaction scenario, and other stuff. It's going
to be fun!
Amanda
On 9/21/12 1:13 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
This is very interesting, but how will it work in the real world?
Let's assume that this has all been done with an acceptable
percentage of the records: 60%? 70%? 80%? You are working as a
reference librarian and a senior faculty member on the
Why on earth, when the question is a list of the movies directed by Clint
Eastwood would any reference librarian point to the catalog?!
There is only one answer to this: Because someone wants a list of movies
directed by Clint Eastwood that are held by the library, that she can go check
out
JOnathan, as you say, the catalog can only answer the question: list of
movies directed by CE OWNED BY THE LIBRARY. That wasn't the questioned
posed, and I answered the question as posed. Obviously, if the user is
only interested in those held by the library, the library catalog is the
From Karen Coyle:
Why on earth, when the question is a list of the movies directed by Clint
Eastwood would any reference librarian point to the catalog?! The catalog is
an inventory of the items owned by the library, not an encyclopedia. Any decent
reference librarian knows that, and I suspect
/ Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 2:04 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
JOnathan, as you say, the catalog can only answer the question: list
But if the library catalog can't identify which records in it represent movies
directed by Clint Eastwood, then the library catalog can't answer the question
of movies directed by clint eastwood owned by the library, right? Which is
why relator codes matter, which is what we're discussing, I
]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 2:53 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
But if the library catalog can't identify which records in it represent movies
directed by Clint Eastwood, then the library catalog can't answer the question
of movies directed
it will be!
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 2:04 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters
Do you apply this same thinking to any kind of authorship/creating, Mike?
No. Did I indicate that I do? I thought that very clearly referring to film and
music terms might be a signal that I was limiting my thoughts to those
materials in this thread. Authorship of films and music is rather a
Kelley McGrath wrote:
It's not a trivial problem and we can't get 100%, but we can do far better
than 0%. My goal is to convert what we can to a machine-actionable
form, identify and fix erroneously-converted info where practical, triage
the rest and move forward.
I'm thinking that in an
21, 2012 3:58 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
Do you apply this same thinking to any kind of authorship/creating, Mike?
No. Did I indicate that I do? I thought that very clearly referring to film and
music terms might be a signal that I
Jonathan said:
But if the library catalog can't identify which records in it
represent movies directed by Clint Eastwood, then the library catalog
can't answer the question of movies directed by clint eastwood owned
by the library,
In the SLC OPAC MARC search, one can look for directed by Clint
Am 20.09.2012 09:57, schrieb James Weinheimer:
All of these considerations show more and more that RDA and FRBR are
intellectual/academic constructs and divorced from the world of
reality.
Yes, but it is one thing to create new rules and another to get
those who are supposed to comply with
On 20/09/2012 11:01, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Yes, but it is one thing to create new rules and another to get
those who are supposed to comply with them to actually do so.
And as long as you need to shell out considerable sums to even read
those rules, and get no glimpse of the
In our library, a high percentage of 100 fields are for the artist,
photographer or architect, and there is nothing in the 245 to indicate that is
what they are. Adding author would make no sense. It's the same situation
with the 700 field. And it would be nearly impossible to work out which
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:14 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Karen Coyle said:
No role in the 100 almost always means author.
Not in our database. We have criminal defendants (our earlier client
base was heavily law firms), artists (early clients included art
schools), composers
I have to join Karen's bandwagon here. I am profoundly disappointed by the
extreme negativism in response to programmatic changes she suggests. Yes, of
course there are exceptions! That's why the cataloging rules are a 3
three-ring binder rather than a 16 page pamphlet. But in the name of
On 20/09/2012 16:55, Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
But I find it interesting that for so many of you (and I refer here to
others who replied) that you are more motivated to declare change
impossible than to think about ways to make possible changes. That's
not only self-defeating, that is
Perhaps a suitably generic term, like creator, could be automatically
assigned to 100 fields since, regardless of what the medium is, AACR2 main
entry rules are design to identify the primary creator as Main Entry. It
wouldn't work 100 percent of the time--and I imagine getting the exceptions
My two biggest issues with RDA are (1) difficulties with the legacy data, which
Jim Weinheimer has already addressed much better and more completely than I
ever could, and (2) the practical fact that creating an RDA record is more
work, more typing, more effort for overworked catalogers.
Exactly, John. Thank you. I absolutely agree that there is no logical reason
why this cannot be done by checking boxes in this day and age. And maybe it
will happen at some point. And that would be great.
During the RDA test, determining what terms to put in the X00/X10 $e took a lot
of time
] On Behalf Of Myers, John F.
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:00 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
Billie Hackney wrote:
But it doesn't change the fact that creating an RDA record is more work, more
typing, and more effort for overworked
, September 20, 2012 1:00 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
Billie Hackney wrote:
But it doesn't change the fact that creating an RDA record is more work,
more typing, and more effort for overworked catalogers
: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:11 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
Just a question here, and I think this was part
, September 20, 2012 4:11 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
Just a question here, and I think this was part of what the podcast was getting
at: Has anyone asked practicing reference librarians what they thought of RDA?
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F.
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:00 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
Billie Hackney wrote:
But it doesn't change the fact
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Karen Coyle kcoyle...@gmail.com wrote:
But I find it interesting that for so many of you (and I refer here to others
who replied) that you are more motivated to declare change impossible than to
think about ways to make possible changes.
**
I sometimes wonder
Kelley, thanks. My gut feeling is that music and moving picture
cataloging have some very interesting use cases that could show some
real benefit from roles. I admit that when I need movie information
(usually for my gaps when doing the NYT crossword puzzle) I turn to
ISBD, which lists the
I don't know what others have gotten out of this long but interesting podcast.
As for myself, I certainly see the logic of James' argument. Does it not follow
then, RDA things like relator codes, 33x fields cannot be used to advantage
until they are first retrospectively added to all legacy
Two comments:
1) some of these can be added, albeit not perfectly, using automated
processing. If a 245 $c says: illustrated by Joe Blow and there's an
added entry for Blow, Joe, then the role can be added. No role in
the 100 almost always means author.
2) one of the main arguments for cloud
Karen Coyle said:
No role in the 100 almost always means author.
Not in our database. We have criminal defendants (our earlier client
base was heavily law firms), artists (early clients included art
schools), composers (we do quite a few music CDs).
Some clever programming might handle
All,
For those who are interested, I have just made a new Catalog Matters
podcast. This one is number 16 about Consistency, Catalogs and the Future.
--
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
74 matches
Mail list logo
