But there is another problem connected with AAPs in the form text
strings: An AAP which is unique with respect to authority file A does
not necessarily have to be unique with respect to authority file B as well.
AAPs may work reasonably well as long as data stays within the bounds of
one
Mac said:
Benjamin said:
While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique
identifier for systems, there is still the need for users to distinguish easily
between identically-named entities in an index.
It seems to me Benjamin is *very* right about this. Too much of our
Thomas posted:
100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003.
245 10 $a Sylvia / $c by Howard Fast
700 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003
In earlier practice, we would have [pseud.] after Fast in the
statement of responsibility to explain why the SOR differs from the
main entry, and a cross reference
You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma
250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition.
Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250
field.
250:__; $a Updated edition.
250;__; $a First edition.
Guy Frost
Associate Professor of
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma
250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition.
Sometime
Me too, considering how much I bug them.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote:
I’d like to welcome back our colleagues at the Library of Congress.
** **
Regards
Richard
Richard Moore
Authority
Isn't that perhaps a case of RDA 2.5.6 Designation of a Named Revision
of an Edition, i.e. could it be the updated edition of the first edition?
If so, then I think the solution would be First edition, updated
edition, because 2.5.6 comes after 2.5.2 according to D.1.1.
As far as I know, 2.5.6
I heartily add my welcome back to everyone else's on AUTOCAT and RDA-L.
As Diane Raines said, we know you are essential, and we've missed you.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
Me too, considering how much I bug them.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Moore,
it is necessary to print this email.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
You can
-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie
Sent: 18 October 2013 16:36
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
From a patron’s point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would
be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised.
kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
: vrijdag 18 oktober 2013 17:51
Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
That makes the most sense to me. I guess if you want to stick with the language
of the subject you’d put “updated first edition” or “first edition, updated”.
If you’re going to put in edition twice
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Kelleher, Martin
mart...@liverpool.ac.uk
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 11:51 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
That makes the most sense to me. I guess if you want to stick with the language
of the subject you'd put
for
the work.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-18-13 3:03 AM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Thomas posted
Adger Williams asked:
Should the AP for this work/expression include notation that it was
originally in Bombastic?
Since we know this not to be true, I would limit recording it to a
quoted noted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries
... the title page says updated edition and the verso says First
edition. The title was previously= published. Do I record both
statements or only the statement that I know = to be true?
I side with the minority on this one.
In 250 I would give the one s on the title page recto as peing the
Hi All,
in such a situation, I'd probably chose
But if the resources were split the following way, with some mentioning only
Fletcher and others only mentioning Bain, then the problem is what to do with
the extra Creator relationship if a 700 field is not used.
Some resources
/ Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Daniel CannCasciato
[daniel.canncasci...@cwu.edu]
Sent: October-18-13 2:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and
Donald Bain
Hi All
On 10/18/2013 8:35 AM, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.edu wrote:
However, suppose we have a fictional author (or even a real one) who
writes allegedly in a fictional language that is translated by the
actual author into the language the work (ahem, expression) is
manifested in.
I see a
Thomas posted:
100 1_ $a Fletcher, Jessica
245 10 $a Trouble at high tide / $c by Jessica Fletcher Donald Bain.
700 1_ $a Bain, Donald, $d 1935-
While RDA does not require it, shouldn't we have $c(Fictitious
character) added to Fletcher? The authority says Use for Fletcher,
Jessica
-L] Fictional languages was Re: Sorry, yet more on Fictional
authors
On 10/18/2013 8:35 AM, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.edu wrote:
However, suppose we have a fictional author (or even a real one) who
writes allegedly in a fictional language that is translated by the
actual author
Carrying that forward with RDA in MARC is a problem because one can't
make Person-to-Work relationships outside of a bibliographic record.
Authority records make Person-to-Person relationships and Work-to-Work
relationships (with some flexibility, such as person-to-corporate body,
for example
...@bl.uk
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: 16 October 2013 19:59
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: 16 October 2013 20:54
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
As I see it, 9.4.1.3
Thank you, Richard. We are delighted to be back.
Bruce Chr. Johnson
The Library of Congress
Policy Standards Division
Washington, DC 20540-4263 USA
[cid:image001.png@01CECB12.26C41E80]
b...@loc.govmailto:b...@loc.gov
www.loc.govhttp://www.loc.gov/
202.707.1652 (voice)
202.707.6629 (fax)
From:
I second that! Hooray! Welcome back!
---
Lizzy Walker, MLS
Assistant Professor, Metadata and Digital Initiatives Librarian
http://works.bepress.com/lizzy_walker/
316-978-5138
Wichita State University Libraries
1845 Fairmount St.
Wichita, KS 67260-0068
From: Resource
That's a source of the misunderstanding right there. RDA doesn't talk about
bibliographic records or authority records, nor does it talk about MARC fields.
It doesn't use the term alternate access point, but it does use variant
access point (defined in the glossary as An alternative to the
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-17-13 12:36 AM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Access points vs. cross references
Thomas posted:
Implementing these access points in a card catalog produces
...@bl.uk
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: 16 October 2013 20:54
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
As I see
AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Charles, Thomas and Richard,
This has been very helpful. Many thanks for your ideas!
In fact, I had been mainly thinking of authority data.
I find Richard's analysis quite convincing: If you *do* create an
access point
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American practice
will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate field (046)
rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the 100$a does not
need to be unique because other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 17.10.2013 15:50, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
Charles, Thomas and Richard,
The connection between a title record and a person record is not created by
the
use of a text string (AAP). Instead, the records are directly linked by
recording
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American
practice will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate
field (046) rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the
100$a does not need to be unique because other
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:50 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American
practice will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate
field (046
is Cunningham
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Thomas posted:
Implementing
Welcome back.
kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202
P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
: Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:00 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Kevin wrote:
It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need for
unique access points.
Yes, and that needs to be the goal. Too often we limit designing
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
Kevin wrote:
It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need
for unique access points.
Yes, and that needs to be the goal. Too often we limit designing for the
future because of current practices. My comment was in reference to the
Mac Elrod wrote:
Thomas posted:
Implementing these access points in a card catalog produces
Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
see
Cunningham, E.V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
In a card catalogue, Fast is a cross reference, not an alternate
access point.
Even better in a OPAC would be
Thomas said:
All cross-references are access points
That's a silly and confusing ambiguity, but unfortunately not the only
one in RDA. A cross reference leads one *to* an access point (or
entry as we have traditionally called it).
This understanding is just a carryforward from what was
The marvelous Mary said:
It has been suggested that the 100$a does not need to be unique
because other data/fields supply the disambiguation information.
IMNSHO that should even more be the case for 245, even with the loss
of the GMD. There is other disambiguation information.
__ __
Kevin said:
I agree about being sure we don't let current practices limit our design for the future.
But if data is going to be tagged as being RDA, then it needs to conform to RDA
'Äsguidelines--which means that if authorized access points are being used, they need to
be made unique.
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-17-13 2:55 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Thomas said:
All cross-references are access points
That's a silly
In a world where we need to disambiguate text strings, uniqueness is a
valid strategy. In a world where a unique identifier represents a
non-unique string in data, uniqueness at the string level becomes
irrelevant. We are [still] in the first world, but I hope not forever.
Diane
On Thu, Oct
Kevin said:
The point that seems to be missed here is that Fast, Howard,
1914-2003 is not a variant access point for the entity identified as
Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. It is an authorized access point for
a different entity ... Both forms of name are valid authorized access
points; as such,
Benjamin said:
While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique
identifier for systems, there is still the need for users to
?distinguish easily between identically-named entities in an index.
It seems to me Benjamin is *very* right about this. Too much of our
discussion ignores
Mac Elrod wrote:
The point that seems to be missed here is that Fast, Howard,
1914-2003 is not a variant access point for the entity identified as
Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. It is an authorized access point for
a different entity ... Both forms of name are valid authorized access
points;
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
[k...@northwestern.edu]
Sent: October-17-13 6:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Mac Elrod wrote
, but 10 later
re-publications credit The Outfit to Donald Westlake on the title page, common
usage eventually trumps 9.2.2.8. I hope that makes sense.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
Catalog Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box
. If Donald Westlake initially
publishes The Outfit under the pseudonym Richard Stark, but 10 later
re-publications credit The Outfit to Donald Westlake on the title page, common
usage eventually trumps 9.2.2.8. I hope that makes sense.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
OCLC #779266283 is a recent example, not RDA, with a 100 for Vine, Barbara,
a 700 for Rendell, Ruth, and this in the 245: Ruth Rendell, writing as
Barbara Vine and I find that helpful.
Isn't it good for people to know that Vine is a pseudonym for Rendell, and
to see that multiple times, because we
Pamela Dearinger said:
OCLC #779266283 is a recent example, not RDA, with a 100 for Vine, Barbara, a
700 for Rendell, Ruth, and this in the 245: Ruth Rendell, writing as Barbara
Vine
and I find that helpful. Isn't it good for people to know that Vine is a
pseudonym for Rendell, and to see
Well, I don't know what to do about that either. I was actually just
responding to the following:
But I would not like to start seeing records that have a 100 for the
named person on the resource and a 700 for the actual author
and I meant to say some of us don't pay attention to what we are
of Washington Libraries
From: Pamela Dearinger
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities
Well, I don't know what to do about that either. I was actually just
responding to the following:
But I would
As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a
separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both.
It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2
for specific instructions on recording as part of an access
Stephen,
As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a
separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both.
It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2
for specific instructions on recording as part of an
This is just a guess, but could examples of the first case include the
exceptions listed under 9.19.1.2? If the titles or designations in those
exceptions are not added to the access point, then perhaps they could be
included as other elements (e.g. 368) in an authority record. However, the
three
Good point. Thanks for pointing me to the exceptions.
But I agree it's not clear whether in these cases you'd want to record
the title at all.
Heidrun
Arthur Liu wrote:
This is just a guess, but could examples of the first case include the
exceptions listed under 9.19.1.2? If the titles
The instruction at 9.4.1.3 is an exact parallel to the instruction at
9.3.1.3, so I think you can apply the same line of reasoning in both
instances. There will be times when we record a person's dates or title as
a separate data element, times when we record dates or titles as parts of
access
(KC) I am really asking about variant access points for the works. If there is
an authorized access point for a work under an author's real identity, and we
have decided that he/she is so well-known that none of his/her alternate
identities need to be given life as NARs in their own
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 17.10.2013 00:02, schrieb Charles Croissant:
The instruction at 9.4.1.3 is an exact parallel to the instruction at
9.3.1.3, so I think you can apply the same line of reasoning in both
instances. There will be times when we record a person's
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: October-16-13 6:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA
(KC) I am
Thomas quoted an RDA example:
Authorized access point: Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
Variant access point: Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
I ain't gwine do dat. I agree with Adam that there should not be two
access points for the same person in the same bibliographic record.
A see or
...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-16-13 8:01 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA
Thomas quoted an RDA example:
Authorized access point: Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
Variant access point: Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
I ain't gwine do dat
Thomas posted:
Implementing these access points in a card catalog produces
Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
see
Cunningham, E.V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
In a card catalogue, Fast is a cross reference, not an alternate
access point.
Even better in a OPAC would be being taken directly from the
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:18 AM
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
Adam said:
If it is the same work, then you have to decide what the preferred
title
on the resource and a 700 for the
actual author. Those should be cross-refs in authority records I think.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
From: Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 11:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: 15 October 2013 08:59
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Such cross-references
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Martin Kelleher wrote:
Thinking about it that way sadly doesn;t make it sound any less
ridiculous.
Entering Rowling under Biddle is no more ridiculous than entering
Clemens under Twain. Mark Twain is a Mississippi River boaters
I must thank Mac and others for takingtime to explain to meRDA's decision to treat ALL fictitious characters equally, Nevertheless, I also have much less difficulty accepting the changefrom Clemens toTwain thanaccepting the authorship of Pooh, $c the Bear; or Snoopy, $cthe Dog; or Kermit, $c
Dana: What you're looking for may be in LC-PCC PS 1.4, under Pre-Modern Forms
of Letters.
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
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:38 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 2.14E1
Dana: What you're looking for may be in LC-PCC PS 1.4, under Pre-Modern
Forms
-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:12 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
I must thank Mac and others for taking time to explain to me RDA's decision to
treat ALL fictitious characters equally
Adam said:
Would they also send back a record with a 240 with the original title plus a
language for a translation when the original title doesn't appear on the
resource?
Yes, except for Shakespeare.
If you're gonna code a record as RDA, then I think you need to
dhere to the standard.
Adam said:
But I would not like to start seeing records that have a 100 for the
named person on the resource and a 700 for the actual author.
It's nice to agree with Adam. There should not be two entries for the
same person in a bibliographic record. That's the function of a see
or see also
Jack Wu said:
Perhaps the relationship designator of $e author should here be
changed to $e Dubious author, or perhaps $e attributed name, or $e
Pretended author.
Once upon a time, when we were more concerned with helping patrons
than theorizing, we inserted [pseud.] in the statment of
Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
When training, I like to use the LC cataloging for ISBN 9781401310646 (LCCN
2011015148). The record was cataloged following AACR2, but it?s easy
The question came up, as I recall, at one of the Bibco training sessions, with
Voltaire as the example. If I recall correctly, the trainer referred to RDA
9.2.2.3: When choosing the preferred name for the person, generally choose the
name by which the person is commonly known. The name chosen
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:45:08 +, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edu
wrote:
The question came up, as I recall, at one of the Bibco training sessions, with
Voltaire as the example. If I recall correctly, the trainer referred to RDA
9.2.2.3: When choosing the preferred name for the
Kathie Coblentz said:
Under RDA (9.2.2.8), each and every one of these alternate identities o=
ught to have an NAR of its own
Seem to me that would apply to 500 see also references, not 400 see
references. It's so long after the fact, I suspect most if not all
Voltaire's titles have appeared
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:21:32 -0700, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
I suspect we don't have legacy records entered under those pseudonyms
as we have for Rampling, nor I suspect do we have 600$a$t or 700$a$t
entries under those pseudonyms.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod
Kathie said:
Don't be too quick to suspect. There are eight records in OCLC for
editio= ns of Candide with Ralph, Mr., le docteur or a variant in
100, and two = others with Ralph in a 700. There are at least a
couple of records under = many, if not all, of Voltaire's multitude
of pseudonyms.
Sevim
There are examples in the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records, in
the RDA Toolkit:
Tools - Workflows - Global Workflows
Go to Contents in this Guide, and click on Examples of RDA Name
Authority Records.
All are real NARs, present in LC/NAF. As they are examples, they have
There is a YouTube video, which can be found by searching “RDA basics for copy
catalogers.”
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh46wrvpCBwEw5x4xmKpKoQ
Sevim McCutcheon
Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof.
Kent State University Libraries
330-672-1703
lmccu...@kent.edu
From: Resource Description and
and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 1:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Finding examples of RDA authority records for personal
names and corporate bodies
Sevim
There are examples in the “BL Guide
From:
Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger [mailto:lyn...@provolibrary.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:11 PM
To: Robert Maxwell
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Use of Headings
Adam said:
If it is the same work, then you have to decide what the preferred
title of the work is, and if it is not the same as the manifestation
you have in hand, then you would add a 240 for the preferred title
(or 130 if no creator(s)). No relationship designator is needed.
I would
Martin Kelleher wrote:
Thinking about it that way sadly doesn;t make it sound any less
ridiculous.
Entering Rowling under Biddle is no more ridiculous than entering
Clemens under Twain. Mark Twain is a Mississippi River boaters'
call, no more a person than Geronimo Chilton.
While I would
Mac,
I am concerned that in all our discussions
of fictitious characters as preferred access points, our many
patrons will be confused (not to mention bemused) by the
direction we are taking. That said, I like your idea of adding
In a private response, someone said to put the summary in quotation marks.
You could put it in quotes, followed by dash and the library in 040$a. You
are quoting the library which created the record.
Yes, if you can read the summary then you can read the book, and vice versa.
Vice versa if
Ann Ryan asked:
What relationship designator are people using for retitled works?
We KISS, e.g.:
246 3 $iOriginally published as:$aTeach yourself instant French.
There is not need for a second entry under the same author.
I do miss 503. Our records are becoming too complex.
__
If it is the same work, then you have to decide what the preferred title of the
work is, and if it is not the same as the manifestation you have in hand, then
you would add a 240 for the preferred title (or 130 if no creator(s)). No
relationship designator is needed.
Adam Schiff
University
I can't use RDA yet, so I wasn't paying initial attention to this discussion.
I understood that a fictitious character as author would now be in a 100 field,
but now it sounds like all fictitious characters are to be treated like real
people and placed in the 600 field as well. Is that the
Good points on both sides. Much probably depends on context. The user
looking for an item in another language than English in our public library
is likely to be more comfortable with that language than with English; in
an academic library I might expect the reverse. For us it is probably a
good
.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: Gray-Williams, Donna
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
I can't use RDA yet, so I wasn't paying initial
Donna Gray-Williams asked:
I understood that a fictitious character as author would now be in a
100 field, but now it sounds like all fictitious characters are to be
treated like real people and placed in the 600 field as well.
That's what we are doing, with $c(Fictitious character) always
.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: Gray-Williams, Donna
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
I can't use RDA yet, so I wasn't paying initial
I recommend the training materials available from the Library of
Congresshttp://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html
loc.gov site.
Of course, these materials are LoC-centric, so you may need to adapt some
of the information to your
Jack Wu said:
I've always learned that a fictitious character is just that, a figment of =
our imagination. It is not capable of authorship (or as creator) unless =
it's a pseudonym of some real person.
We should describe things as they present themselves. It the title
page says it was written
, Jack Wu wrote:
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:17 -0400
From: Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character
Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu wrote:
I've always learned that a fictitious character is just that, a figment
of our imagination. It is not capable of authorship (or as creator) unless
it's a pseudonym of some real person. I can understand Holmes, Sherlock
getting an access point, but cannot
301 - 400 of 7407 matches
Mail list logo
