Am 30.04.2011 12:20, schrieb James Weinheimer:
Concerning MARC coding, as far as I am concerned, the changes toward
FRBR started from the wrong point. (For the moment, I will assume
that FRBR would be a good thing to implement) Changes started with
the data (RDA) and not with the format.
MARC also insists it's not a display mechanism. MARC is a transmission
format.
On 4/29/2011 12:37 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
I am not one of the people on all of these committees, but I think
discussions of MARC keep coming up on the RDA list is because RDA
insists that it is not a display
On 04/29/2011 09:40 PM, Vosmek, John J. wrote:
snip
The condescension from RDA advocates toward RDA skeptics (implying - or sometimes stating
outright - that the skeptics are just too closed-minded and thinking too
inside-the-box to grasp the revolution in thinking that is RDA) probably
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: April-30-11 6:20 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC
On 04/30/2011 03:40 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
Data modeling should be done first. It is a top-down exercise. How
would anyone know what one is talking about, or what is even possible
with any encoding system, if entities aren't defined clearly, and the
model isn't made explicit up
And to further reiterate, they are different RDA elements because they are in
fact different things. Copyright date is a legal date that reflects the year
in which an issue is registered for copyright protection. It is not the same
thing as a publication date.
No, it isn't the same thing,
mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 8:09 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC
I (further) wrote:
I worte:
I realize poor spelling is unlikely to further sully my reputation on this
list, but this is getting ridiculous.
Good night, ladies and gentlemen!
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Karen,
I disagree. The issue here is not MARC, but ISBD, followed by the
question of the function of this data. Since the US library community
seems to have adopted ISBD for its displays, then one needs to figure out
the function of the element within
I seem to recall saying much the same thing some years ago at one of
the last MARBI meetings I attended, and it's very likely Karen said it
too. I don't really understand why the realization that this is a zero
sum game hasn't penetrated significantly in this community.
This is supposed to
I am not one of the people on all of these committees, but I think
discussions of MARC keep coming up on the RDA list is because RDA insists
that it is not a display mechanism. Well, the info has to displayed
somehow; it can't be bits and pieces (objects) floating around in cyberspace
just
For better or worse, RDA is going to have to be implemented in the MARC format,
which has been shown to be inadequate to the task. It's obvious from
discussion on this list and others that the vast majority of catalogers don't
understand the fundamental change in outlook that RDA represents
You are right; we need to find another communication format, albeit one
that is able to handle the vast amount of bibliographic data that is in
MARC. Ten years ago, I would not have thought it possible, but I now
believe that libraries as a group will be able to move to MARC's successor
John Hostage wrote: It's obvious from discussion on this list and others that
the vast majority of catalogers don't understand the fundamental change in
outlook that RDA represents and only see it in terms of a set of replacement
rules for AACR2. There is still a lot of re-education work that
Hi Kathy,
You wrote:
I would code the separate elements of publication date and copyright date in
the fixed field as they appear in OCLC #670190952. MARC already enables us to
separately encode publication date and copyright date in the fixed fields.
Since these are separate elements, I can see
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
John Hostage wrote: It's obvious from discussion on this list and others that
the vast majority of catalogers don't understand the fundamental change in
outlook that RDA represents and only see it in terms of a set of replacement
rules for AACR2
Judith Kuhagen said:
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date
for the June 2011 ALA Annual Conference.
But that proposed new subfield for copyright year is included in a
*very* complex coding scheme proposed for 260. Couldn't we just add
one new subfield for
-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:31 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Judith Kuhagen said:
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for
the June 2011 ALA Annual
: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Expect to see a MARBI Proposal for ALA Annual in New Orleans that proposes
specific subfields for copyright and phonogram dates.
I would code the separate elements of publication date and copyright date
in the fixed field as they appear in OCLC #670190952. MARC
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg [gf...@cst.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:02 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including
: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:34 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Expect to see a MARBI Proposal for ALA Annual in New Orleans that proposes
specific subfields for copyright and phonogram dates.
I would code
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
[gf...@cst.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:02 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Just
[gf...@cst.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:02 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including both
dates if they are the same?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kuhagen, Judith j
On 04/28/2011 09:50 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
snip
Maybe I have misunderstood AACR2 all this time, but I was under the
impression that if you had a publication date and it was the same as
the copyright date, you did not need to use the copyright date.
Is/Was that the case? And if so, if I am
Kathy Glennan said:
I recommend waiting to see the new MARBI Proposal on encoding
copyright date before critiquing the possible content. MARBI
Discussion Paper 2011-DP01 explored several options ...
All options are needlessly complex.
And no, we cannot reuse 260 $d for copyright date; reusing
Do you mean the real copyright sign glyph, or do you mean a c in
parens? Or can people use whatever they want?
It's not that this individual thing is THAT hard for software to pull
out; it's that the piling on of all these individual not that hard
things results in a much more expensive and
Anyone have an answer to why RDA requires you to enter [date of
publication not identified] instead of just leaving the data element blank?
Just leaving it blank seems more efficient for the cataloger AND easier
for software to deal with (not having to know that the magic string
[date of
Coyle
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:42 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
I think I understand the reason why people want this in a 2XX (human habit and
systems habits), but we added the 542 for copyright information in 2008, and it
has a subfield
Johathan asked:
Do you mean the real copyright sign glyph, or do you mean a c in
parens? Or can people use whatever they want?
According to RDA, it should be the glyph or copyright spelled out.
The glyph is preferable, but it seems to me (c) is a fair
approximation when the keyboard does not
, April 28, 2011 2:43 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Karen,
I disagree. The issue here is not MARC, but ISBD, followed by the
question of the function of this data. Since the US library community
seems to have adopted ISBD for its displays
:28 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Field 542 seems to have been designed to hold official data relating to
copyright registration (e.g., from the Catalog of the United States Copyright
Office). If so, I would hesitate to use subfield $f
, 2011 3:42 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
I think I understand the reason why people want this in a 2XX
(human habit and systems habits), but we added the 542 for
copyright information in 2008, and it has a subfield for copyright
date, as well
Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Laurence
Creider
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:43 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Karen,
I disagree. The issue here is not MARC, but ISBD
Jay Shorten said on Autocat:
OCLC 670190952 (no LC number), has 260c 2010, (c)2010. Is it really
necessary to code this in the fixed fields as t 2010 2010? Wouldn't s
2010 be better?
In RDA publication date is a core element, but copyright date is not.
I expect to see more [2011], (c)2011
of Maryland
kglen...@umd.edu
-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: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC
35 matches
Mail list logo
