Mac Elrod wrote:
RDA requires only the first author and illustrators of children's
books as author mainn or added entry.
First author as baseline comes from RDA; illustrators of children's
books as required comes from the LCPS. If we're pointing fingers,
let's point them in the right
And wouldn't it help everyone in thier local processing and decision making if
RDA floor records were not encoded as full?
On 05/20/11, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where
that co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with
Christopher Cronin said:
statistically, it is probably close to impossible for any one person
to even find themselves in a position of browsing through jumbled
records in any given list of search results in our catalog.
This is an important difference between a major academic library, and
On 05/20/2011 04:20 PM, Christopher Cronin wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote: It is simply unrealistic to think people will do more than
the minimum.
Is is? I have yet to hear of a single library in the test, or that
subsequently implemented RDA, that has made a policy to limit description
So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that a single author is
good enough when there are more than three, it is OK.
However, when RDA affords catalogers the option to follow that
historical arbitrary determination to its logical end (by extending its
application to numbers of authors
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: May 20, 2011 11:14 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records
On 05/20/2011 05:34 PM, Myers, John F. wrote:
snip
So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that a single author is
good enough when there are more than three, it is OK.
However, when RDA affords catalogers the option to follow that
historical arbitrary determination to its logical end
://www.concordlibrary.org/
bh...@minlib.net
--
-Original Message-
From: James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:54:55 +0200
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
On 05/20/2011 05:34 PM, Myers, John F. wrote
John Myers said:
So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that a single author is
good enough when there are more than three, it is OK.
With RDA, a single author is good enough even if there are only two
or three authors. A major reduction in access.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac)
Mac wrote: Are you considering icons to inform patrons of carrier?
Yes. Iconography and facets are open options. Aquabrowser already does this
by using fixed field coding (not using GMDs). We will be engaging in research
to learn whether the 33X data can either refine or extend icons and
and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Christopher Cronin
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 1:49 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
[Material deleted}
What would you do if RDA is not implemented?
Ask me is six weeks. Probably
] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:14 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
On 05/20/2011 04:20 PM, Christopher Cronin wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote: It is simply unrealistic to think people will do
more than
I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where
that co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with authors and
other contributors? I doubt if they would like it very much at all.
Exactly, couldn't agree more. And that's precisely why we have CHOSEN
not to apply
On Fri, 20 May 2011, James Weinheimer wrote:
I guess we have probably exhausted our respective points. I will only discuss
one here:
Again, RDA's standard was made arbitrarily--unless somebody out there can
point to some kind of research done that showed our patrons wanted only a
single
: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
This shows a completely different attitude toward standards than what is
in the other professions. For one thing, newer versions of standards
should seek to provide improvements from what they were before, not
something worse. Allowing a worse product
: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
This shows a completely different attitude toward standards than what is
in the other professions. For one thing, newer versions of standards
should seek to provide improvements from what they were before, not
something worse. Allowing a worse product
/ Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 4:36 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
On Fri, 20 May 2011, James Weinheimer wrote:
I guess we have probably
I agree with Adam Schiff and Christopher Cronin;
the more we view full-level requirements as floors, not ceilings, the better.
(I'm speaking for myself with that phrase; not attributing it to their
viewpoints exactly.) I've long ignored the rule of three and also the(mostly
unwritten)
-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Benjamin accurately said:
I would just point out that, for most if not all of us, a hybrid catalog is=
already the norm. For example, plenty of pre-AACR2 records persist (parti=
cularly for serials) in our catalog as in LC's and the like
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
There were no main entry changes for monographs as dramatic as the
dropping
of the rule of three.
For me, the most difficult earlier change was entry for serials and
series. I had spent years with Journal of chemistry being entered
under title, and Journal of the Chemical
Agreed [though I'm not sure that's the specific issue Mac was
addressing] -- the Task Force on the Rule of 3 final report (2001) reads:
The rule of three was certainly not based on the functions of the
catalog as stated in the basic principles cited above [the Paris
Principles, etc.]; when
Jennifer Sweda quoted the Paris Principles:
... when access is deliberately left out of the record
for a given author, then the catalog will not be an efficient
instrument to find out which works by a particular author ...
RDA requires only the first author and illustrators of children's
On 05/19/2011 07:22 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
Jennifer Sweda quoted the Paris Principles:
... when access is deliberately left out of the record
for a given author, then the catalog will not be an efficient
instrument to find out which works by a particular author ...
RDA requires only
Edit (great name!) asked:
Do you upload records converting to AACR2 format for now that we are not
sure we'll be implementing RDA
We are fortunate to so far have derived no RDA records. We tend to
catalogue less usual material.
Or are you planning on continue doing this even when all the
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
29 April 2011
EXPORT OF RDA RECORDS TO BE AACR2 COMPATIBLE
If 040$e is rda
Export with a at the beginning of RSN.
Leave LDR/18 as i
Remove 040$erda
Remove
Benjamin accurately said:
I would just point out that, for most if not all of us, a hybrid catalog is=
already the norm. For example, plenty of pre-AACR2 records persist (parti=
cularly for serials) in our catalog as in LC's and the like.
The differences between the red and green books, AACR1,
26 matches
Mail list logo
