Hi all,
Does anyone feel they understand the linking field structure for a reprint well
enough to review one I have? I'm not sure I'm phrasing the note in the 775
correctly and would like another opinion. It's no. 73 in the Save file.
Pat
Patricia Sayre McCoy 1121 E. 60th
Brunelle Longo wrote:
Is there any rationale for having two RDA content terms
(cartographic dataset and computer dataset) instead of just the
simple DC 'dataset'?
There may be rationale, but no rationality. These content terms are
used with another core element, carrier, and optionally media
I have heard from a couple people who were unable to open the slides. This
seems to be because Firefox is sometimes not associating .ppx files with
PowerPoint. There are a couple ways to get around this (navigate to open
with PowerPoint or save the file, open that folder and open with
PowerPoint),
Hi Pat,
Please copy and paste the 773 (and the 580 if the 1st indicator on the 773
is 1). I worked on a two-year project cataloging reprints and analytics;
and, 15 years later, they are still part of my workflow.
R.
--
Robert C.W. Hall, Jr.
Technical Services Associate Librarian
Concord Free
I accidently sent this to the wrong list, but thanks for such a quick response!
Thanks.
Pat
Patricia Sayre McCoy 1121 E. 60th Street
Head, Law Cataloging Serials Chicago, IL 60637
D'Angelo Law Library773-702-9620
University of Chicago
James Weinheimer wrote...
But I wonder if what you point out is a genuine problem, especially in an
RDA/FRBR universe. The user tasks are to find, identify, yadda -- works,
expressions, manifestations, and *items*. Not sub-items. This record seems
to allow everything that FRBR requires, plus it
Kelly McGrath posted:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/kelleym/KM_MWpresentation.pdf
The author says, among other things, that MARC field 245 is maxed out
for subfields. With number subfields, 26 more can be added. How many
does he want?
Subfields need not be in numerical or alphabetic order, e.g.,
Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca:
Kelly McGrath posted:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/kelleym/KM_MWpresentation.pdf
The author says, among other things, that MARC field 245 is maxed out
for subfields. With number subfields, 26 more can be added. How many
does he want?
I'm not sure how
I'm hoping that someone from the JSC can explain better, but it looks
to me that a cartographic dataset has come particular characteristics.
Section 3.19.7.3 of RDA says:
3.19.7.3 R ecording Digital Representation of
Cartographic Data
For digitally encoded cartographic data, record the
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
The MARC record structure would allow the use of more than one character for
the subfield code, e.g. aa instead of just a. (Up to 9, BTW, since it's
a one byte numeric field). That would give us scads more possibilities,
At 12:39 PM 2/14/2011, Karen Coyle wrote:
There are possibilities, but I don't think any of them could be
considered cheap. At the same time, maybe it would be worth thinking
some of them through before rejecting the ideas outright.
(Brand-new subscriber jumps in with both feet, eyes closed.)
Karen Coyle correctly said:
I'm not sure how you calculate this. There are only 9 single-digit
numbers (0-8, since 9 is for local use only),
Thanks for catching that slip up. I was of course thinking of Hal
Cain's oft repeated suggestion for upper case codes. Would they
require additional
Ms. McGrath, author of the presentation, readily identifies as red
herrings the issues on which Mac focuses his rebuttal. There are more
substantial issues presented by the author, namely the structural
difficulties of MARC both with respect to encoding reliably
machine-actionable data and to
-- Forwarded message --
From: Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu
Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] rdacontent terms - dataset
To: kco...@kcoyle.net
Just a thought: can we get back to speaking/writing in clear English.
Without that type of English for RDA, it appears
Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
I'm not sure how you calculate this. There are only 9 single-digit
numbers (0-8, since 9 is for local use only), and most of them have
already been used: 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. A decision was made early
on that the number subfields, to the extent possible, would retain the
Check out this document which contains a recent mapping of the new ISBD Area 0
terms to the RDA terms for content and media types (ISBD does not have values
for carrier types). The RDA/ONIX Framework (ROF) is the larger framework from
which RDA got its content, media, and carrier types:
John Myers said:
RDA would be our equivalent to force us to recast our
coding for upgrading to 21st century systems and needs.
But shouldn't that coding horse preceed that rule cart? Why adopt
rules we can't code?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | /
Mac Elrod wrote:
John Myers said:
RDA would be our equivalent to force us to recast our
coding for upgrading to 21st century systems and needs.
But shouldn't that coding horse preceed that rule cart? Why adopt
rules we can't code?
My guess is that since we need *both* the new horse
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M. Randall
Sent: February 14, 2011 6:14 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA and MARC
Mac Elrod wrote:
John
I like the idea of subfields with multiple letters. Perhaps we could name
them after important or well known catalogers? For example
subfield $jim
subfield $mac
subfield $karen
We could have a commission to determine the names, perhaps something along
the methods used for naming hurricanes
- Original Message -
From: Adam L. Schiff
I like the idea of subfields with multiple letters. Perhaps we
could name them after important or well known catalogers? For example
subfield $jim
subfield $mac
subfield $karen
Maybe ... but I would definitely draw the line at subfield
I've had not one suggestion on or off list with any provision in RDA
which makes it easier to catalogue electronic resources than using
AACR2, which might have been added to AACR2.
According to the Sanchez survey, many of us feel RDA is also better
than AACR2 for other nonprint material.
I beg
22 matches
Mail list logo
