I can understand the logic of that. Would you also have a 246 field with the
complete title in German, and a 246 with the complete title in English, with
the B.446 in each? That would seem to meet all needs.
Steve McDonald
I agree with that. Thanks for the sharing. An interesting story.
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:52 AM, McDonald, Stephen
steve.mcdon...@tufts.eduwrote:
I can understand the logic of that. Would you also have a 246 field with
the complete title in German,
We just came across an OCLC record (#812122288) with a tag 9 and contents 466.
When we clicked on the information it says that it's undefined. Does anyone
know what this field is for? We could not find anything in the RDA
documentation.
Ophelia
Ophelia Mealy-Payne
Metadata Engagement
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Harden, Jean
Sent: April-03-13 5:58 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] order in 245 when title is more than one language,
I have looked this OCLC record over and over and I don't see a tag field 9 or
466 in it. Is it possible you are referencing the wrong OCLC record?
Carolyn Kadri
Special Collections Cataloger
University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, TX 76019
817-272-7153
From: Resource Description and
I have the same feeling. I have to highlight points in slides that are not
covered in the current rules but will be added in the future. And I cannot
guarantee that all points in delivery are accurate. How many documents I
have to capture and read :) Anyway, in the land of this country, the most
Perhaps you could construe the colorist as an illuminator? ;)
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Kadri, Carolyn J ka...@uta.edu wrote:
I find that the MARC relator terms and codes lists much more robust and
explanatory than those listed in the RDA appendices at this point in time.
Even though
I did that too. I looked at the record over and over. But I was scared to
make a conclusion :) I am wondering if somebody else can find them.
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Kadri, Carolyn J ka...@uta.edu wrote:
I have looked this OCLC record over
A private communication from a member of the group that has worked out the
document Best Practices for Music Cataloging
(http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf)
said that the next version of this document will include a section on
Richard-
My take is, if you are not going to provide a contents note, then it's most
likely going to be confusing to see the author designator added for the editors
(authors of what? the user might well ask)-- not to mention being perhaps
unfair to the other authors in the anthology omitted
If we use the MARC relator code list, do we need to add a subfield 2 to tell
what thesaurus that we used?
Richard Baumgarten
Cataloger
Johnson County Library
P.O. Box 2901
Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301
(913) 495-2454
baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
From: Resource Description and Access /
Richard's question leads right into the heart of something which has
been puzzling me for some time.
If I understand RDA correctly, it would be wrong to use the relationship
designator author in an ordinary added entry field here, because it
can only be used for somebody who is a creator. The
Don't think we have that yet. I copied from Bib Format and Standards the
following for 1XX and 7XX:
Relationship information (R)
To be determined/To be determined
Carolyn Kadri
Special Collections Cataloger
University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, TX 76019
817-272-7153
From: Resource
I went back and double-checked this in OCLC and you all are correct. We now
suspect that it was a tag that came through our ILS.
Thanks!!
Ophelia
Ophelia Mealy-Payne
Metadata Engagement Strategist
Alderman Library
University of Virginia
PO Box 400108
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4108
PH: (434)
I suspect you are right about this too.
We had a local subfield 9 set up in our tagtables for the 035 field.
We used subfield 9 to represent a previous control number.
We added it to the 035 field in the tag tables and all is well.
-Ellen
On 4/4/2013 12:04 PM, Payne, Ophelia (omp2w) wrote:
I
Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.org wrote:
If we use the MARC relator code list, do we need to add a subfield 2 to
tell what thesaurus that we used?
I read the $4 as self-defined in that regard--source from only the MARC
relator codes list. For instance:
The bibliographic record in MARC is not a surrogate for the work; it's a
mishmash of information about all the FRBR entities. So a relationship
designator added to a name in a bibliographic record does not have to link the
name to the work. Actually, though, in the example cited you have more
Ben,
You get me confused here.
I'm not an expert on this kind of material, but I would have thought
that e.g. for the early Asterix books both Albert Uderzo and René
Goscinny are to be seen as creators in the sense of RDA 19.2: Persons,
families, or corporate bodies jointly responsible for
I think the definition of author in RDA might be a bit too restrictive. I
would certainly consider a comic book writer to be an author. The definition
should be expanded to include something like ... responsible for the textual
content in works of mixed content types (e.g., works consisting
Mac,
What about the fixed fields? How are you treating the two dates from repeating
264s then? Using r in DtSt or representing the original vs. microforms dates
in a different way?
In the LC catalog (and as an example in their training module 4), this
microform uses r and both dates in the
I can't speak to what is ideal in theory, but what I see in most records for
graphic novels is that the writer is given Main Entry (so, under RDA, would get
$e author) and the artists as Added Entries (so, $e illustrator; or, if/when
more specific terms become available, $e inker, or what have
Carikyn Kadri said:
I find that the MARC relator terms and codes lists much more robust
and explanatory than those listed in the RDA appendices ...
We absolutely agree; there is also the greater language nutrality of the
codes over terms (there is a list of French term equivalents),
We were
Rochard Baumgarten asked:
I am listing all four editors. All of them have some of their
writings in the book. I am not creating a Contents note because of
the sheer size that it would be. Should I just use the relationship
designator of editor or use both author and editor?
We would not use
Stephen McDonald asked:
I can understand the logic of that. Would you also have a 246 field
with the complete title in German, and a 246 with the complete title
in English, with the B.446 in each?
Yes we would. Sorry for not including them.
If one were to mix up the order of data as on the
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: April-04-13 3:33 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] multiple relationship designators
Rochard
Interesting. I hadn't realized that artists of graphic novels are not
commonly treated
as creators (and still find it hard to reconcile that with the rules in AACR2
21.24
and RDA 19.2). Is this also common practice for coffee table books of the type
photographs by ... text by ...? I had
My typo:
We would not use $eauthor ore $faut.
That should be $4aut of course. Sorry.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Emily Flynn asked:
What about the fixed fields? How are you treating the two dates from
repeating 264s then? Using r in DtSt or representing the original
vs. microforms dates in a different way?
We find it counter intuitive that apart from continuing resources, the
later date does in date one,
28 matches
Mail list logo
