Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
Quoting Laurence Creider lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu:
Is their a technical reason for your statement MARC is not up to
providing the appropriate subfields? MARC21 certainly allows for
indication of the thesaurus from which subject terms are taken, and
presumably that could
Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting Hal Cain
Isn't it possible (at least in theory) to use upper-case letters also
to designate subfields? That would mean another 26 possible
subfields.
I have suggested that at MARBI meetings and was met with looks of
horror. It seems like a perfectly reasonable
Karen has delineated the problem very well, but we should all just admit that
*any solution* on these analytic-type records will definitely *not* be followed
by everyone. I don't think that lots of libraries outside the Anglo-American
bibliographic world would ever agree to use a 505 (although
Karen Coyle wrote:
What John Myers and Judith Kuhagen pointed out was different -- it was
something that looks very much like the 505 Contents note, with
multiple resources, and not necessarily authority controlled. It's
quite a different beast, and in AACR was considered a note, not a
On 3/9/2010 5:21 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
We just had a discussion about 'role designators' for 'related works' in
a 700, on this list I think?
There's no way to input such a thing in current MARC. But (in response
to RDA?) MARBI is adding subfields to 700 for expressing the nature of
the
Ah, I see, and the same subfield for uncontrolled entry vs entry from a
controlled list. That is unfortunate. I see allowing for uncontrolled
entry but would be much much better if controlled entry was in a
separate subfield, so a machine reader could know if it was supposed to
be controlled
Quoting Laurence Creider lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu:
Is their a technical reason for your statement MARC is not up to
providing the appropriate subfields? MARC21 certainly allows for
indication of the thesaurus from which subject terms are taken, and
presumably that could be extended to other
Karen Coyle wrote:
1) there are only 36 possible subfields in every field. In many fields,
there are none or at most one left to use
Isn't it possible (at least in theory) to use upper-case letters also to
designate subfields? That would mean another 26 possible subfields.
Needs must when
Quoting Hal Cain hec...@dml.vic.edu.au:
Karen Coyle wrote:
1) there are only 36 possible subfields in every field. In many
fields, there are none or at most one left to use
Isn't it possible (at least in theory) to use upper-case letters also
to designate subfields? That would mean
-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of
Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:31 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Quoting Hal Cain hec
Great drawings!
You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an
RDA context. This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think
the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between
works. Formally, placement there does conform to the FRBR model,
.
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:26 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Great drawings!
You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an
RDA context. This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think
the answer
Quoting Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu:
Great drawings!
You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an
RDA context. This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think
the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between
works. Formally,
Seems like in general whether you have to create a new 'entity' for
something should depend on whether it serves your needs to do so.
I see this an answer to the 'aggregation' question too.
There's a new edition with the same 'main text', but a new 'preface'.
Under my interpretation of
For that example above, I can imagine that an initial cataloger ignores the
new prefatory material and considers it a manifestation of an existing
expression. Later, someone else comes along with the same book in hand, and
they find this established record in the great cooperative cataloging
Adding more detail and granularity should be ignorable by our software
systems. Our systems can't magically add information where none was
before, but should be able to eliminate information that is more than
the user community needs. So if those changes to add information are
recorded in a
I'm not sure that we should continue to hold on to the idea of typing
in tables of contents (or buying them from vendors who then refuse to
let us share them). In a world where digital versions of books are
taking hold, and Amazon has made Look Inside the Book their way of
letting customers
Not that I disagree with Karen's observation about applying the model.
But in terms of RDA, a contents note of the kind we are used to seeing
generated from AACR2 1.7B18, appears in the Oct. 31, 2008 RDA full draft
on p.10 of Ch.25 in the examples labeled Structured Description of the
Related
Diane Hillmann wrote:
I'm not sure that we should continue to hold on to the idea of typing
in tables of contents (or buying them from vendors who then refuse to
let us share them). In a world where digital versions of books are
taking hold, and Amazon has made Look Inside the Book their way
Katen Coyle said:
There are lots of tables of contents that I don't think of as related
or contained works -- simple chapters in a book ...
That's what I used to think.
Now we have two electronic publisher clients whose works have
individual chapters used with other individual chapters from
Quoting Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu:
Not that I disagree with Karen's observation about applying the model.
But in terms of RDA, a contents note of the kind we are used to seeing
generated from AACR2 1.7B18, appears in the Oct. 31, 2008 RDA full draft
on p.10 of Ch.25 in the examples
We just had a discussion about 'role designators' for 'related works' in
a 700, on this list I think?
There's no way to input such a thing in current MARC. But (in response
to RDA?) MARBI is adding subfields to 700 for expressing the nature of
the relationship. I recall in the previous
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
In AACR2, and in RDA too I believe, a related work can be related just
about any way the cataloger's discretion desires. In AACR2 (I think)
and marc-as-it-is-today (I am confident), there is no way to record the
nature of that relationship.
Except by making a note
Jonathan said:
and marc-as-it-is-today (I am confident), there is no way to record the
nature of that relationship.
MARC fields 700$a$t, 730, and 740 all have 2nd indicator 2 for
analytical entry; blank indicating some other relationship. To define
that relationship further, one needs a note.
24 matches
Mail list logo
