[RDA-L] Treatment of alternative formats in RDA
How does RDA treat alternative formats in the same database (intellectual content identical, but the content is delivered on different physical carriers). Specifically, I would like to know best practices for the following: if a print edition of an E-book is already in the database, is it better to add a link to the E-book on the bibliographical record of the print expression or add a new bibliographical record for the electronic version? What are the implications of each? Thank you
Re: [RDA-L] Treatment of alternative formats in RDA
Audrey Williams asked:
if a print edition of an E-book is already in the database, is it better to
add a link to the E-book on the bibliographical record of the print
expression or add a new bibliographical record ...
Add a new record. The fixed fields would differ, as would the 33X media
terms. Having one record would complicate placing holds in some ILS.
The same applied to AACR2, except that the GMD would be there for one
and not the other.
If one adds an 007 for the electronic version to the print record,
some ILS would exclude the record from a print search.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an exhibition catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum. The museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the art involved. What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 100 for the museum? Is it just author? Thanks! Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University
Re: [RDA-L] Treatment of alternative formats in RDA
Different carriers constitute different manifestations, warranting separate records. As Mac Elrod responded, the physical descriptions would be different. The single-record/multi-version approach had an appeal at one point, primarily to avoid presenting patrons with multiple records for a single title (particularly for serials). When serial records were handled one-by-one, there was a certain labor saving aspect to appending a different format to the existing print record, particularly for a card catalog environment but sufficiently so even in early ILSes. As digital formats emerged and subscription packages proliferated, the original labor saving aspect was overtaken by the ability to download record sets for a package. Multiple records have been the norm for some time. Resolving matches to existing titles in the database has become less efficient than allowing records to live side-by-side. Multiple records allow easier management of records when holdings in either format are dropped. The development of ebook packages have only magnified this dynamic, as a single ebook package may constitute several years worth of monographic cataloging if performed on a one-by-one basis (which could allow single-record treatment). Just as the labor saving benefits of the old approach were overtaken by new efficiencies obtained by using multiple records, so too was the perceived convenience of the patron under the old approach offset by new benefits of multiple records. Multiple records offer cleaner filtering of results when limiting by format. The expedited ability to transfer records into the database is far preferable to significant delays to providing access at all. John Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Audrey Williams awilli...@regent-college.edu wrote: How does RDA treat alternative formats in the same database (intellectual content identical, but the content is delivered on different physical carriers). Specifically, I would like to know best practices for the following: if a print edition of an E-book is already in the database, is it better to add a link to the E-book on the bibliographical record of the print expression or add a new bibliographical record for the electronic version? What are the implications of each? Thank you
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Pete Wilson asked:
Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an exhibition=
n catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum=
. The museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the ar=
t involved. What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 100 fo=
r the museum?
Most exhibition catalogues of a single artist are entered under artist.
We use $eartist.
In the rare instance of an exhibition catalogue entered under the
museum (which would be 110 not 100), we use $ehost institution in the
absence of anything really appropriate. Another possibility is
$eissuing body.
We only use $eauthor for persons. At an IFLA meet, an European
cataloguer sniffed at me and said corporate bodies don't write books,
people do. There is a certain truth to that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Thanks, Mac. Sorry, I obviously meant 110, not 100. And I was not thinking of
single-artist exhibitions. Multiple-artist exhibitions often are entered under
corporate body, in the circumstances I mentioned.)
The designation issuing body is not listed in RDA as associated with the
creator element, is it? (That is, it's in I.2.2, not I.2.1.) Is it
nevertheless appropriate for use in a 110? My impression is no, and my feeling
is that even if that's acceptabe, it's unsatisfactory. Yes, we know there are
non-creator relationships which nonetheless get main entry, like defendant,
but normally a 1xx field is filled by a creator. When we enter this sort of
exhibition catalog under a 110, it seems to me we are implying that the
corporate body has creator status. For such cases, shouldn't there be a
relationship designator that is explicitly labeled as creator-compatible? Even
if issuing body can (semi?)-legitimately be used with a 110, it seems to me
we'd be better served by a designator specific to the creator element.
The sound of the term issuing body itself is not bad. Of course there is
also author, which RDA does say can be used for corporate bodies. But I'm a
little bothered by just author, especially in the case of a catalog which
combines texts credited to actual human authors with lots of reproductions.
Host institution, which is also in I.2.2, seems like a stretch to me. Its
definition in the appendix implies that the institution has little to do with
the creation of the resource, even if they had lots to do with the mounting of
the exhibition.
I wonder whether corporate author would be a good relationship designator for
the creator element. I guess logically it has the same problems as just plain
author, but it seems better for describing the relationship embodied in a
110. When I think of corporate author I imagine a somewhat more multifaceted
relationship to the work than that which a personal author has, and its use
with a corporate name seems potentially less confusing than just author.
This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use relationship
designators for all creators. A corporate body in a 110 looks like a creator
to me. If we have to draw a designator from I.2.1, I guess author is the
best bet for my purposes at the moment, but it appears more people than just I
aren't very happy with it.
Pete
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Pete Wilson asked:
Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an exhibition=
n catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum=
. The museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the ar=
t involved. What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 100 fo=
r the museum?
Most exhibition catalogues of a single artist are entered under artist.
We use $eartist.
In the rare instance of an exhibition catalogue entered under the
museum (which would be 110 not 100), we use $ehost institution in the
absence of anything really appropriate. Another possibility is
$eissuing body.
We only use $eauthor for persons. At an IFLA meet, an European
cataloguer sniffed at me and said corporate bodies don't write books,
people do. There is a certain truth to that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Pete Wilson said:
This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use
relationship designators for all creators.
If you don't like any of the more exact terms, your best option would
seem to be to use $ecreator. It's not in one of the lists, but
we've been told in the absence of an appropriate term, we can use the
category.
We also lack a good term to use for the gallery or museum as a 710.
It is impossible to have a finite list provide a term for all possible
relationships.
Some of us are using $ehost institution, but I would prefer the same
term whether 110 or 710, perhaps $evenue? That hardly suggested a
creative role however, does it?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
