Ideally, the software would convert from the controlled vocabulary to whatever
language makes makes sense to the user -- which could be different in
different systems -- translating to a different language is an obvious example
Wouldn't the same hold true for translating those incredibly obtuse
-Original Message-
From: hec...@dml.vic.edu.au [mailto:hec...@dml.vic.edu.au]
Sent: December 8, 2010 2:02 AM
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access;
Brenndorfer, Thomas
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
Quoting Brenndorfer, Thomas
On 12/7/2010 7:19 PM, hec...@dml.vic.edu.au wrote:
In some catalogues they can be a hyperlink. An embedded relator $e or
$4 would compromise such a link.
Not unless the system is stupid. Which many of ours are.
But in our data format, we should not be constrained to recording only
data
Ideally, the software would convert from the controlled vocabulary to
whatever language makes makes sense to the user --
I can see translating into other languages, but for English patrons
would it not have been better to use language which makes sense in the
first place, rather than theory
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: December 8, 2010 11:23 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
Ideally
Concerning abbreviations, there are an entire range of options today instead of
the rather atavistic method of retyping everything. I personally think
automated methods, plus using our MARC fields and language of the item would
solve at least 90% of all of the abbreviation problem. Many
I don't think anyone is realistically suggesting that existing legacy
records be manually changed to not have abbreviations.
RDA is just suggesting that going forward they are not used.
For all the carping from catalogers that love abbreviations, I do not
understand what the benefit is
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
snip
I don't think anyone is realistically suggesting that existing legacy
records be manually changed to not have abbreviations.
RDA is just suggesting that going forward they are not used.
For all the carping from catalogers that love abbreviations, I do not
Geez, this looks like AACR2 to me. Looks ok. Make added entry for the
journal and its exact issue number.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Christopher Case cca...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Folks,
I'm in the midst of attempting some in-house RDA cataloging and could use a
hand on relationships.
-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
Geez, this looks like AACR2 to me. Looks ok. Make added entry for the journal
and its exact issue number.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Christopher Case
cca...@gmail.commailto:cca...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Folks,
I'm in the midst
Christopher Case posted:
730 0# Tipit=CC=A3aka. =C7=82p Suttapit=CC=A3aka.
730 0# Journal of the Pali Text Society.
500 ## Index to: Tipit=CC=A3aka. Suttapit=CC=A3aka.
500 ## Contained in: Journal of the Pali Text Society for 1906-1907.
This does not differ from AACR2.
Many would
Thanks for the tips. I forgot to mention the 630 which I did in fact use. As
far as Contained in, I got that wording from Appendix J of RDA. I do feel
a bit uneasy about that wording though, as this is in fact a separate
publication, with a note on the front cover (what I used for the description
Yes, those relationship designations will be a LOT easier for machine
processing, they are a great idea. Compared to a note.
I suppose that software could just strip out any trailing (work) prior
to display. That _probably_ won't strip out anything it shoudln't.
And also for that matter,
-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
I agree with Mac on this - contained in is not correct because you are
cataloging a reprint/extract. I think the note should be Reprinted from
... or Originally published in ... I disagree that 490/8XX is
appropriate. The resource you
Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
And also for that matter, strip out that trailing colon too, depending on
the nature of the display. (Some displays may, for example, put it in a
parenthetical suffix instead of a prefix). I thought RDA was done having us
put punctuation for
University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 2:23 PM
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Cc: Robert Maxwell
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
Yes, those relationship
: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 2:19 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
I agree with Mac on this - contained in is not correct because you are
cataloging a reprint/extract. I think the note should be Reprinted from
... or Originally published in ... I
Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
*From:*Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 07, 2010 2:23 PM
*To:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
*Cc:* Robert Maxwell
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
Yes, those
, December 07, 2010 2:23 PM
*To:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
*Cc:* Robert Maxwell
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
Yes, those relationship designations will be a LOT easier for machine
processing, they are a great idea. Compared
/ Resource Description and Access
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
Ah, I did get confused by all the subfields.
Indeed there can be errant entry in any field, but recognizing the difference
between _errant_ entry of a controlled value (which generally should be ignored
/ Resource Description and
Access
*Cc:* Robert Maxwell
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
Yes, those relationship designations will be a LOT easier for
machine processing, they are a great idea. Compared to a note.
I suppose that software could just strip
Robert Maxwell said:
in my opinion, Contained in would be appropriate.
Contained in would mislead the patron to think that the present
physiclly manifestation (removed, reprint, offprint, whatever), is
physically contained in a larger manifestation. That is not the case.
Theory should not
Robert Maxwell said:
730 0# $i Index to (work): $a TipitÌ£aka. Çp SuttapitÌ£aka.
We would find more helpful:
630 0# $a TipitÌ£aka. Çp SuttapitÌ£aka$vIndexes.
730 0# $i Contained in (work): $a Journal of the Pali Text Society.
But it is NOT contained in the Journal. Why would we lie
Quoting Maria Oldal old...@themorgan.org:
RDA does not seem to allow relator terms to be used in authorized
access points for works and expressions, e.g.:
7001 ǂi Sequel to (Work): ǂa Jones, Raymond F. ǂq (Raymond Fisher),
ǂd 1915-1994, ǂe author. ǂt Son of the stars.
At least, none of
Mac's comment here points to the huge question of how the ILS will be able
to interpret metadata to users. As difficult as it has been to communicate
the WEMI concepts to librarians, I expect that it will become even more
challenging for a typical user to interpret a Contained in (work) note,
not
Jonathan Rochdkind said:
,,, trying to custom fit your data to the idiosyncracies of your
current interface only results in data that will need to be fixed
later ...
What about describing your item using a controlled vocabulary which
doesn't accurately represent what is being catalogued?
With
-07-10 8:24 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
Mac's comment here points to the huge question of how the ILS will be able to
interpret metadata to users. As difficult as it has been to communicate the
WEMI concepts to librarians, I expect
Quoting Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca:
Starting with the relationship designators we have this candidate:
J.4.2 Equivalent Manifestation Relationships
equivalent manifestation A manifestation embodying the same
expression of a work.
I think this captures the idea
28 matches
Mail list logo
