Yes, as with many fields, we will discover that we need both a
transcribed field, and a relationship--the relationship can be built
with a number of technical devices, including what we used to call a
'controlled access point', or some other kind of identifier. I like
John's attention to clearly
Adam said gave example:
Published in London, Ont.
(Place of publication as transcribed from source: London)
So abbreviation in notes, but not in transcribed areas?
260$aLondon [Ont.] is far more helpful to patrons, most of whom
never get to the notes. It is also a language neutral
John, I agree with you that we need both pieces of information, but how
can this be part of our data if it isn't included in the cataloging
rules? This is what concerns me: that there seems to be an assumption
that data will be available that isn't being accounted for in RDA. As
you say: Apart
At 10:58 AM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
John, I agree with you that we need both pieces of information, but how
can this be part of our data if it isn't included in the cataloging
rules?
I don't disagree that this should be provided for in RDA.
This is what concerns me: that there seems to
While the example currently says London, Ont., my understanding is that
abbreviations in notes are also supposed to be avoided in general. I
assume that the example will be changed to spell out Ontario when the
final draft comes out in August.
Adam
On Fri, 9 May 2008, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
But I agree with John in general. Certainly, when the standards are
insufficient metadata creators are always free to add extra stuff not
provided for in the standards. But our goal should be to make standards
that are sufficient, of course.
I think that our history
Greta de Groat wrote:
I do think that the ideal situation is one where one has both
human-readable data and identfiers for many of the data elements. That
way you have the best of both worlds. Look at CCO, many of the
instructions also follow this path. I think it is a good thing for the
there is no reason for anyone to have to key a publisher name for a modern
book with an ISBN -- the identity of the publisher is inherent in the ISBN and
that information could be system supplied (using a barcode scanner)
Is this true of very small publishers who buy their ISBNs in tiny
Please remove my name from this listserv. thanks. e.
Eleonore C. Spears/Librarian
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity
2033 Barnett Ave
Quantico, VA 22134-5103
703/432-7142 DSN 378-7142
703/784-2026 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Tribby wrote:
there is no reason for anyone to have to key a publisher name for a modern book
with an ISBN -- the identity of the publisher is inherent in the ISBN and that
information could be system supplied (using a barcode scanner)
Is this true of very small publishers who buy their
At 12:04 PM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
For example, there is no reason for anyone to have to
key a publisher name for a modern book with an ISBN -- the identity of
the publisher is inherent in the ISBN and that information could be
system supplied (using a barcode scanner). But this would
Kevin, there is no reason why the publisher name would change over time.
You are assuming something that I did not say: I said that one could
avoid keying the publisher name by having it derived from the ISBN at
the time of cataloging. A publisher record (if linked through an
identifier, which
Greta said:
... statements of responsibility for videos are particularly lengthy
and time consuming.
Not all elements apply to all items. Statement of responsibility
should not apply to items of mixes responsibility such as
encyclopedias, newspapers, periodicals, journals, and motion pictures
Karen Coyle wrote:
Then again, one saves the same amount of time NOT typing Random
House ...
A small point perhaps, but we rarely key the name of a common
publisher of legal materials. We either have it on a macro key, cut
and paste if cataloguing an electronic resource, or edit from the
Karen said:
Kevin, there is no reason why the publisher name would change over time.
I assume you mean change *in the record*; publishers change the form
of their names frequenty.
Kevin is correct, at the time of cataloguing the publisher's name may
have changed since the time of publication.
At 01:29 PM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
Kevin, there is no reason why the publisher name would change over time.
You are assuming something that I did not say: I said that one could
avoid keying the publisher name by having it derived from the ISBN at
the time of cataloging. A publisher record
16 matches
Mail list logo
