Transcribed information in transcribed fields only? I can't see the point of
it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're examining more
obscure.
Hear hear to reviving GMDs!
A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into something
more user friendly -
On 22/10/2012 23:41, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
I see no advantage in combining 100/240 or 100/245 in nuMARC. They
only need to be combined in 600 and 700.
In new title lists we print, we give the 100 once, with 245s after in
alphabetic order. I see no need to repeat the 100 in print or
How about using the $k subfield instead?
Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245:
$k - Form
Term that is descriptive of the form of the described materials,
determined by an examination of their physical character, subject of
their intellectual content, or the order of
Well, it would still be nonstandard, plus probably isn't set up in most systems
to act like GMDs. Assuming the cataloguers at our institution decide on such a
direction, we'll probably just keep using $h unless the systems stop accepting
them. Given the widespread support for GMD, it may be
Or, you can just keep it locally, which is what we plan to do.
When staff have a patron standing in front of them, or on the phone, seeking
help, they use the #h [gmd] description to quickly distinguish which type of
material is wanted by the patron. That is supposed to be the basis of the
For some of the background that led to the abandonment of the GMD, see
http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html#GMD
--
John Hostage
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Cambridge, MA
As preliminary studies were undertaken that led to the creation of RDA, it
became obvious that the GMD was an intellectually inconsistent hodgepodge of
terminology. Sound recording managed to encompass an entire content category
of recorded sound. Meanwhile, motion picture and videorecording
I don't recall that anyone has mentioned that during the RDA test period, the
copyright date was core. Since 264 had not yet been implemented, it would
explain why 260 fields in RDA records include both the publication date and the
copyright date or the inferred publication date and the
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe
Sent: October 23, 2012 8:03 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
...
It's just a shame it fails to successfully impart this information in an
effective and concise fashion, as could have perhaps been managed with more
commonly employed terminology. :-(
Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original
The current GMD isn't fuzzy. It's quite obvious. The material is a sound
recording, microform, or videorecording, etc. There is an additional field
on the records (500, 538) that explains what kind of sound recording or
what kind of microform or what kind of videorecording the material happens
to
I would not call this GMD quite obvious:
Trouble blues|h[electronic resource] /|cCurtis Jones.
This is in a record for streaming audio, that is, a sound recording.
On the other hand, our catalog also has this:
Ariadne auf Naxos|h[electronic resource] =|bAriadne on Naxos.
Is this for a sound
The major of purpose of GMD is to draw users' attention to material types,
since it is an important factor for users to make a decision on selecting
items. Is there any way for OPAC systems to show material types in a
intuitive and friendly way based on the three 33x fields? Curious.
Joan Wang
There is supposed to be an additional field that clarifies what each GMD is
... It's added all the time to videorecording records etc. Masking phrases
for URLs are also a good way to signal to non-library employed users how to
access an electronic resource. We use, Click here for access.
Thank
Steven Arakawa wrote:
I don't know whether the 440 vs. 490/830 analogy works. The problem
with 440 was that it combined description and controlled access in one
MARC field; 490/830 clearly recorded the distinction between the series as
it appeared vs. the series as controlled access. In the
Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual role, why not
split it?
Currently, the 245 is description and access point. Should we split them?
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.eduwrote:
Steven Arakawa wrote:
I don't know whether the 440 vs.
Gene Fieg wrote:
Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual role, why not
split it?
Currently, the 245 is description and access point. Should we split them?
We already do this, though inconsistently, through uniform titles/preferred
title of the work, yes?
Karen
When they differ, and the difference matters for retrieval, we do. Uniform
titles (or, controlled access points for works and expressions).
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Resource Description and Access /
Getting back to my original question concerning [date of publication not
identified] and DtSt, Dates, based upon the answers received so far, there is
currently no way to code 264_1 $c [date of publication not identified] and 264
_4 $c copyright [insert year] in DtSt and Dates. If this is the
We don't display the new 3xx fields in our OPAC either; I've always thought it
was obvious from the controlled, technical vocabulary used in $a $2 that
336-338 $a and $2 were not intended for display. However, in our system the
fields are keyword indexed. In the current and near future
If we wanted to record a distributor (cf. RDA 21.4), and that distributor was
only responsible for distribution in a particular geographic area, would we use
264 $3 (materials specified)?
E.g.: Piscataway, NJ : $b Transactions Publishers, Rutgers University, $c
[2012] $3 Copies distributed in
Benjamin Abrahamse wrote:
If we wanted to record a distributor (cf. RDA 21.4), and that distributor was
only responsible for distribution in a particular geographic area, would we
use 264 $3 (materials specified)?
E.g.: Piscataway, NJ : $b Transactions Publishers, Rutgers University, $c
If look at the examples from OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards,
yours is not correct.
‡3 Materials specified Information to differentiate the multiple statements
of the described materials to which the field applies. 260
Paris : ‡a New York :‡b Vogue ‡c 1964- 260 2
‡3 1980-May 1993 ‡a
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
Perhaps the biggest frustration I get in these discussion is the
conflation of issues. A discussion of controlled vocabulary terms
shouldn't be bogged down by display issues.
Display issues? The function of 245$h or 33X would seem to me to
facilitate discovery of
Karen Snow said:
... there is currently no way to code 264_1 $c [date of publication
not identified] and 264 _4 $c copyright [insert year] in DtSt and
Dates.
Thankfully. Having date ... not identified and a date in the same
record makes us look very foolish. If nuMARC allows coding such a
Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been
helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type.
However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more
comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were
Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion.
But, back to the original question - why do the extra work?
Our current gmds are very clear and succinct: dvd, compact disc, comic book;
book on cd, etc. Why make people try to figure out a combination of 3 terms
when one simple clear statement is
Steven Arakawa wrote:
Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have
been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier
type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into
more comprehensible terms in the OPAC,
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia
Sent: October 23, 2012 2:36 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
You have DVD, Compact Disc and Comic Book as GMD's in 245$h?
This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records
with these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and
you won't generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or
LC.
The
You have DVD, Compact Disc and Comic Book as GMD's in 245$h?
This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records with
these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and you won't
generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or LC.
Perhaps
Yes, sorry, of course these are not AACR2 terms, but we do use them and have
for years. In fact, they were carefully chosen before I got here. They convey
exactly what is needed to staff. As I said in my earlier post, III's field 30
MAT TYPE generates icons which are for patrons using the
Mac Elrod wrote:
Karen Snow said:
... there is currently no way to code 264_1 $c [date of publication
not identified] and 264 _4 $c copyright [insert year] in DtSt and
Dates.
Thankfully. Having date ... not identified and a date in the same
record makes us look very foolish. If nuMARC
Since we do cataloging based on manifestations, different manifestations of
the same work have different bib-records. So GMD is more helpful for
looking at lists of searching results, for example, a list of titles. When
have the same title, you can make a basic decision based on GMD showing
after
On 23/10/2012 19:45, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
Perhaps the biggest frustration I get in these discussion is the
conflation of issues. A discussion of controlled vocabulary terms
shouldn't be bogged down by display issues.
Display issues? The function of 245$h or 33X
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: October 23, 2012 5:14 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
My experience has shown that
Kevin Randall said:
It's not simply date ... not identified but date of publication
not identified. A copyright date is not a publication date. I have
seen many resources over the years bearing copyright statements but
no date of publication ...
That's what the question mark after the year
Ben posted:
Piscataway, NJ : $b Transactions Publishers, Rutgers University, $c [=
2012] $3 Copies distributed in North America
Perhaps we should ask MARBI for 264 $z Public note. Ooops, MARBI is gone.
How about:
264 2 $aPiscataway, NJ : $b[Distributed in North America by] Transactions
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
The focus is on controlled terms and data normalization. That's what
data management is about.
But why use poor terminology which requires translation for display?
Why not use succinct understandable terms to begin with?
Smaller libraries will have little option but
Library and Archives Canada have said that they are intending to use
$4 relator codes rather than $e relator terms, because of their
bilingual nature.
The advantage of codes over terms, is that the local system could
substitute patron friendly terms, as opposed to the lengthly, often
redundant,
Hi
Do we need a Preferred Title of Manifestation or Authorised Access
Point for Manifestation to connect the manifestation to other Group 1
entities?
Where are the rules in RDA?
Regards
Henry
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edu wrote:
Gene Fieg wrote:
Where this
Whatever field(s) and subfield(s) we choose to display in the 1st line for
title display, search and discovery are critical for users.
Re-Packing SMD (special material designation) from meaningful 33X into 245$h
[GMD] is logical based on demo records shared by Steven Arakawa from Yale Univ.
Thomas said:
How about not jamming unrelated data into a single element to drive
display needs.
The GMD has its own MARC21 subfield, thus not jammed. It is where it
is needed a early warning, as suggested by Margaret Mann (her example
was literary genre when not clear from the title).
There
43 matches
Mail list logo
