Quoting Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net:
Quoting Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu:
It was reported that these two elements emerged from FRAD.
Unfortunately, I don't have a paper copy and, unlike FRBR, there does
not appear to be a digital manifestation, so I'm not in a position to
confirm the
Hi Folks,
I'm in the midst of attempting some in-house RDA cataloging and could use a
hand on relationships. Currently I am cataloging a book called Similes in
the Nikayas : a classified index. The book is an extract from the Journal
of the Pali Text Society for 1906-1907.
I'd like to record the
As a smaller library, we use EOS.Web from EOS
International. We have control over much of the setup, so I have
gone into the MARC Bibliographic setup section and added all the
possible new MARC tags and subfields while retaining all of the
existing tags and
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.
Yup, looks like AACR2 to me too. Is there a lesson to be drawn? ;-) ;-) ;-)
Just a thought.
John
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:54 AM
To:
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,
Here's what RDA says about contained in:
contained in (work) A larger work of which a part is a discrete component.
Reciprocal relationship: contains (work)
and the reciprocal definition:
contains (work) A work that is a discrete component of a larger work.
Reciprocal relationship: contained
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
I added the colons myself. RDA probably doesn’t prescribe them, though I
haven’t searched thoroughly.
I believe you are referring to the relationship between $4 (relator code) and
$e (relator term). $e or $4 is used to show the relationship between a
person/family/corporate body and a
Thanks for straightening me out, Bob!
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
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 and reported to catalogers as an error), and
_uncontrolled_ free text entry --- is exactly
And I would still add a note. If we really want to be user-centered, we
should compose notes that are easily comprehended by the user and not depend
on relators which may or may not be understandable to the patron.
Besides, in the old days, notes were used to justify entries. The
by-product of
Yes, $e/$4 is still used in RDA encoded in MARC to show relationships between
persons/familes/corporate bodies and works/expressions/manifestations/items.
1001 Jones, Raymond F. ǂq (Raymond Fisher), ǂd 1915-1994, ǂe author.
24510Planet of light : ǂb a science fiction novel / ǂc by Raymond F.
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. A free text note field can't be translated to
another language, a
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
I think Mac's comment But it is NOT contained in the Journal is useful
because the important thing to ask is what it is.
If it is a reprint of an extract, then we're dealing with related
manifestations. If it is a work, then using 730 with contained in (work) is
correct, but it's not the
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
