J. McRee Elrod wrote:
I have to admit it's hard to see how ISBD punctuation could be
automatically generated ...
How would one program, for example, to insert :, =, ;, or ,
before 245$b? There would be no way to automatically distinguish
other title information, parallel title, second
[This discussion is predicated on the December 2005 draft of RDA. I
know there have been some decisions and changes made in the intervening
years, but tracking them down is a little thorny, so I'm sticking with
the draft I have and knowledge that place of publication is to be an
optional element
A follow on thought regarding the recently offered RI for place of
publication. (Again subject to the limitation of working from the
December 2005 draft.)
More appropriate to an RI is the ongoing furor over the optional nature
of recording place of publication. Most are not aware that place
In general, I thought I remember hearing from an LC representative
talking about RDA that one of the goals of RDA was to eliminate the
need for rule interpretations. Whether the current draft does that
is another story; I hold out hope that before it is finalized, the
narrative can be made much
For the time being, RDA is doing away with most of the square bracket
practices of AACR2, relegating such bracketed or amplifying information to
notes. Gone too is the use of Latin abbreviations and abbreviations in
general.
As I recall, one reason for doing away with abbreviations like s.l.
Willy Troxler said:
,,, it is possible to set punctuation automatically:
':' before each 245$b [other title information]
'=' before each 245$d [parallel title]
';' before each 245$i [second title in collection, same author]
'.' before each 245$j [second title in collection, different
Maybe our cataloging should include a hot link from our standard
abbreviations to the translation/definition in the appropriate
Wikiwhatever? Or embed such links as non-literal value surrogates?
Irreverently yours (and ducking),
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
it's a selection of a value
from one of three possible values--the actual display of these value
(possibly as a narrative note) can be done by the system, in the
vernacular language of the user, not fixed to one language as written
by the cataloger.
This was my
With corrections, thanks to you good folk.
Support for the following rule interpretation may be sent to your
national library, and this list.
===
RECORDING PLACE OF PUBLICATION IN BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORDS
3 January 2008
Jonathan Rochkind said:
In general, I thought I remember hearing from an LC representative
talking about RDA that one of the goals of RDA was to eliminate the
need for rule interpretations.
The projected Anglo national libraries' implementation standards quack
like rule interpretations to me.
John F. Myers said:
The RI appears to be addressing issues in AACR2 ...
I would say the RI is written in the language of ISBD, not AACR2. It
attempts to make future records compatible with past records, while at
the same time adopting the consistency of RDA.
For the time being, RDA is doing
-Original Message-
Quoting me:
Records created by/for [Agency X/Nation X libraries] will not treat
this element as optional.
J. McRee Elrod responded:
Excellent! There remains the question of which place(s) to
transcribe, whether to supply jurisdiction if lacking, and what to do
with
Hear! Hear! In this regard it may be instructive to reread the following
(old) article:
Fidel, Raya, and Michael Crandall. The AACR2 as a Design Schema for
Bibliographic Databases. Library Quarterly 58, no. 2 (1988)L 123-42.
--Elisabeth
Karen Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although
John F. Myers said:
2.8.0.4 specifies the transcription of all places.
2.8.0.3 2nd bullet, section c, largely directs adding a note for
jurisdiction if not on the piece, and for clarifying instances such as
WA (U.S.) and WA (Aus.).
2.8.0.3 specifies transcription in the form in which it
hi,
i'm not sure this makes sense. don't you mean that it is difficult
to create cataloging rules that integrate with and correlate to the (or
an) encoding format?
it seems to me evident that it is really much easier to create rules
without regard to the computer encoding scheme. that would
15 matches
Mail list logo
