Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Hello, I'd like show us one Authority Record of our virtual library, where we are using 372 Field of Activity and how the users see it in the web. Maybe, this may seem simple because it isn't complicated, but for us is effective. In this link you see it in differents formats http://www.larramendi.es/i18n/consulta_aut/registro.cmd?control=POLI20090013810 Best regards Patricia Juez Patricia Juez García patriciaj...@larramendi.esmailto:patriciaj...@larramendi.es [cid:367170411@27112013-23C7] Fundación Ignacio Larramendi C/ Claudio Coello 123, 1ªpl 28006 Madrid Tel. 91 432 10 42 Fax. 91 432 11 13 www.larramendi.eshttp://www.larramendi.es/ Certificado ISO 9001. No imprimir si no es necesario. Protejamos el Medio Ambiente De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41 Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hi John, I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding name AAPs as one of the facets of their field of activity? I believe current NACO policy is that we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political jurisdictions -- how are they any different? So long as this data element is defined as field or fields of endeavour, area or areas of expertise, etc. where else would we record it? I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation 372 $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh 374 $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a Human rights $2 lcsh 374 $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the person's/body's output. I think the problem is that the data element is called Field of activity. Robert On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I think we've gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374. In most cases, a person doesn't need both. Some people seem to have gotten much too specific in these fields. An authority record does not have to be the same as a Wikipedia article. What purpose does that serve? The examples in RDA 9.15 are fairly general. I wouldn't say Stalin was a politician. I would say he was a dictator and a head of state. If you're looking for another class-of-persons term, you could use Communists, but communism isn't a field of activity, in my opinion. Similarly, I have seen authority records for corporate bodies where people want to make very narrow attributes. To use a made-up example, if there were a heading National Association of Skydivers. Board of Directors, some would add a 372 for National Association of Skydivers-Administration. I would question whether such a subordinate body needs any such field, but if so, I think it should be Skydiving, which would have been on the parent record. Does anyone think it makes sense to use a corporate body name as a field of activity? -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 05:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hello again. I'm wrangling with some of the 3xx fields for authority records, in order to produce some policy for using some of them in a coherent and fruitful way. I'm facing some problems, and neither the MARC field itself, nor RDA instructions, nor the use I've seen out there gives me a clear view. The main bump in the road is field 372. Let's say I'm working on Joseph Stalin. I'd like record and retrieve him as a politician (374), as a member of Communist Party of the Soviet Union (373), but I'd like to relate him with communism. So, recording Communism in 372 seems perfect for that purpose. But I would also record Comunism in 372 for a scholar historian on communism. Summing up, if I record 372 Punk-rock, Am I expressing that the guy is a musician (374),
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Robert I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person's name being recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply was Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by subject headings, but I don't see anything that would prevent its use. We try to use topical terms when we can, but I've had no problem advising my cataloguers that the name of a corporate body or person could be appropriate in the situations you describe. The name heading for William Shakespeare appears in 372 in several LC/NAF NARs. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41 Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hi John, I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding name AAPs as one of the facets of their field of activity? I believe current NACO policy is that we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political jurisdictions -- how are they any different? So long as this data element is defined as field or fields of endeavour, area or areas of expertise, etc. where else would we record it? I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation 372 $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh 374 $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a Human rights $2 lcsh 374 $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the person's/body's output. I think the problem is that the data element is called Field of activity. Robert On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I think we've gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374. In most cases, a person doesn't need both. Some people seem to have gotten much too specific in these fields. An authority record does not have to be the same as a Wikipedia article. What purpose does that serve? The examples in RDA 9.15 are fairly general. I wouldn't say Stalin was a politician. I would say he was a dictator and a head of state. If you're looking for another class-of-persons term, you could use Communists, but communism isn't a field of activity, in my opinion. Similarly, I have seen authority records for corporate bodies where people want to make very narrow attributes. To use a made-up example, if there were a heading National Association of Skydivers. Board of Directors, some would add a 372 for National Association of Skydivers-Administration. I would question whether such a subordinate body needs any such field, but if so, I think it should be Skydiving, which would have been on the parent record. Does anyone think it makes sense to use a corporate body name as a field of activity? -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 05:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hello again. I'm wrangling with some of the 3xx fields for authority records, in order to produce some policy for using some of them in a coherent and fruitful way. I'm facing some problems, and neither the MARC field itself, nor RDA instructions, nor the use I've seen out there gives me a clear view. The main bump in the road is field 372. Let's say I'm working on Joseph Stalin. I'd like record and retrieve him as a politician (374), as a member of Communist Party of the Soviet Union (373), but I'd like to relate him with communism. So, recording Communism in 372 seems perfect for that purpose. But I would also record Comunism in 372 for a scholar historian on communism. Summing up, if I record 372
[RDA-L] Remove GMD subfields (in Millenium Library Automation System)
Dear Colleagues, I would like to ask a question about GMD removing process from 245 responsibility area. We are using Millenium automation system and couldn't success to remove the subfield *_|h[electronic resource]_* statement. Thank you in advance for your support and suggestions. BR, Didem Ardanuc -- Didem ARDANUC (Ms.) Head of AcquisitionsCataloguing Department Middle East Technical University Library Orta Dogu ve Teknik Universitesi Kutuphanesi Universiteler Mahallesi Dumlupinar Bulvari, No:1 06800 Ankara TURKEY Phone: +90 312 210 27 83 Fax: +90 312 210 27 78 http://lib.metu.edu.tr/
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
I should add--I had no idea that Stevens and Einstein were born and died the same year until after I wrote this email. And I picked those two names more or less randomly. Weird. b Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:12 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity I wonder if a best practice in this situation would be--like we often do with biographical material--to add a 372 $a referring to the class of person that the individual represents as well? [Made up examples:] 111 $a International Einstein Symposium 372 $a Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 $2 naf 372 $a Physicists $2 lcsh 111 $a Wallace Stevens Society. $b Annual Conference 372 $a Stevens, Wallace, 1879-1955 $2 naf 372 $a Poets, American--20th century $2 lcsh Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:57 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Robert I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person’s name being recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply was “Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by subject headings, but I don't see anything that would prevent its use”. We try to use topical terms when we can, but I’ve had no problem advising my cataloguers that the name of a corporate body or person could be appropriate in the situations you describe. The name heading for William Shakespeare appears in 372 in several LC/NAF NARs. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41 Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hi John, I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding name AAPs as one of the facets of their field of activity? I believe current NACO policy is that we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political jurisdictions -- how are they any different? So long as this data element is defined as field or fields of endeavour, area or areas of expertise, etc. where else would we record it? I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation 372 $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh 374 $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a Human rights $2 lcsh 374 $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the person's/body's output. I think the problem is that the data element is called Field of activity. Robert On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I think we’ve gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374. In most cases, a person doesn’t need both. Some people seem to have gotten much too specific in these fields. An authority record does not have to be the same as a Wikipedia article. What purpose does that serve? The examples in RDA 9.15 are fairly general. I wouldn’t say Stalin was a politician. I would say he was a dictator and a head of state. If you’re looking for another class-of-persons term, you could use Communists, but communism isn’t a field of activity, in my opinion. Similarly, I have seen authority records for corporate bodies where people want to make very narrow attributes. To use a made-up example, if there were a heading “National Association of Skydivers. Board of Directors”, some would add a 372 for “National Association of Skydivers—Administration.” I would question whether such a subordinate body needs any such field, but if so, I think it should be “Skydiving”, which would have been on the
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Benjamin If I were writing the best practice guidelines, I’d be inclined to use “Physics” and “Poetry” in 372; the Einstein Symposium is (I assume) concnered with Einstein, and with Physics. We’ve tried to give our cataloguers a bit of guidance on the use of LCSH in NARs, in the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records, which can be found under Tools-Workflows-Global Workflows in the RDA Toolkit. A scetion at the end is called “LCSH in Name Authority Records”. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: 27 November 2013 15:12 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity I wonder if a best practice in this situation would be--like we often do with biographical material--to add a 372 $a referring to the class of person that the individual represents as well? [Made up examples:] 111 $a International Einstein Symposium 372 $a Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 $2 naf 372 $a Physicists $2 lcsh 111 $a Wallace Stevens Society. $b Annual Conference 372 $a Stevens, Wallace, 1879-1955 $2 naf 372 $a Poets, American--20th century $2 lcsh Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:57 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Robert I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person’s name being recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply was “Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by subject headings, but I don't see anything that would prevent its use”. We try to use topical terms when we can, but I’ve had no problem advising my cataloguers that the name of a corporate body or person could be appropriate in the situations you describe. The name heading for William Shakespeare appears in 372 in several LC/NAF NARs. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41 Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hi John, I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding name AAPs as one of the facets of their field of activity? I believe current NACO policy is that we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political jurisdictions -- how are they any different? So long as this data element is defined as field or fields of endeavour, area or areas of expertise, etc. where else would we record it? I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation 372 $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh 374 $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a Human rights $2 lcsh 374 $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the person's/body's output. I think the problem is that the data element is called Field of activity. Robert On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I think we’ve gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374. In most cases, a person doesn’t need both. Some people seem to have gotten much too specific in these fields. An authority record does not have to be the same as a Wikipedia article. What purpose does that serve? The examples in RDA 9.15 are fairly general. I wouldn’t say Stalin was a politician. I would say he was a dictator and a head of state. If you’re looking for another class-of-persons term, you could use
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Someone pointed out to me off-list that $y 20th century cannot be directly applied to headings for classes of persons. My apology for the error. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:12 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity I wonder if a best practice in this situation would be--like we often do with biographical material--to add a 372 $a referring to the class of person that the individual represents as well? [Made up examples:] 111 $a International Einstein Symposium 372 $a Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 $2 naf 372 $a Physicists $2 lcsh 111 $a Wallace Stevens Society. $b Annual Conference 372 $a Stevens, Wallace, 1879-1955 $2 naf 372 $a Poets, American--20th century $2 lcsh Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:57 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Robert I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person’s name being recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply was “Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by subject headings, but I don't see anything that would prevent its use”. We try to use topical terms when we can, but I’ve had no problem advising my cataloguers that the name of a corporate body or person could be appropriate in the situations you describe. The name heading for William Shakespeare appears in 372 in several LC/NAF NARs. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41 Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hi John, I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding name AAPs as one of the facets of their field of activity? I believe current NACO policy is that we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political jurisdictions -- how are they any different? So long as this data element is defined as field or fields of endeavour, area or areas of expertise, etc. where else would we record it? I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation 372 $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh 374 $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a Human rights $2 lcsh 374 $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the person's/body's output. I think the problem is that the data element is called Field of activity. Robert On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I think we’ve gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374. In most cases, a person doesn’t need both. Some people seem to have gotten much too specific in these fields. An authority record does not have to be the same as a Wikipedia article. What purpose does that serve? The examples in RDA 9.15 are fairly general. I wouldn’t say Stalin was a politician. I would say he was a dictator and a head of state. If you’re looking for another class-of-persons term, you could use Communists, but communism isn’t a field of activity, in my opinion. Similarly, I have seen authority records for corporate bodies where people want to make very narrow attributes. To use a made-up example, if there were a heading “National Association of Skydivers. Board of Directors”, some would add a 372 for “National Association of Skydivers—Administration.” I would question whether such a subordinate body needs any such field, but if so, I think it should be “Skydiving”, which would have been on the parent record. Does anyone think
Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: Why would one wish to do that? Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a rock. All we need is 264 2 for the seller of the rock. Like manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring objects are not published, and should have the appropriate 264 indicator for manufacturer and distributor. Don't confuse RDA's production statement, which refers to man-made stuff, with what might be similar statements in another universe for naturally occurring objects. RDA woefully lacks any direction on telling us to forego 260/264-like statements for these objects--if that's the intent of the standard. Presumption through silence isn't good guidance. No they are not. Much of RDA is very unclear, and not in accord with reality. I disagree. Some of it is unclear. I have the same problems with parts of AACR2. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
M. E. m.k.e.m...@gmail.com wrote: Don't confuse RDA's production statement, which refers to man-made stuff, with what might be similar statements in another universe for naturally occurring objects. Thinking this over, I should qualify that the production statement would also apply to natural objects that are made or converted into something else by hand, such as a display--AACR2's resource as communication that I brought up in a related thread on OLAC-L. Again, a case of RDA not be more clear on how to handle such things which can be important parts of some collections. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
Bernhard said:
RDA, to my knowledge, doesn't define the term, although why not?
I mean, in the light of RDA's ambitions...
In light of RDA's ambitions to be used outside the bibliographic
world, there certainly needs to be better provisions for objects.
Museums for example could use 264 0 for the artist who carved a
statue, and should be able to use 264 3 for the manufacturer of the
period telephone in its collection. Museums have far more objects
than books, and RDA is very book centric, particularly in not
recognizing that objects may be manufactured or distributed, but are
not published in the public's understanding of that word.
When/if RDA is coded in Bibframe, bf: tags need to be specific for
producer, publisher, distributor, and manufacturer.
We are not in Alice's Wonderland, in which words may mean whatever we
want them to mean. We are part of a larger culture in which words
have meanings, including publisher and published.
I suspect nobody on the JSC deals with the sorts of things which cross
Julie Moore's desk daily.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Additional documents from JSC meeting
The follow-up documents listed below, based on discussions at the November 2013 JSC meeting, are available on the public website ( http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html): 6JSC/ISBD/Discussion/3/JSC response 6JSC/BL/13/LC follow-up Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
[RDA-L] Deadlines reminder
Dear JSC, Because there are so many deadlines floating around in emails, Gordon agreed that I should send a listing of current deadlines. I'll update the list via email as deadlines are added. The list below includes dates from the 2013 meeting actions table plus dates assigned after the meeting via emails. It doesn't include any of my tasks related to editing for the February release. Let me know if I've omitted any deadlines or given incorrect information. FYI: Five of the more complicated proposals requiring additional work now have Jan. 10-13 deadlines. With only a few days between those deadlines and my Jan. 15 deadline to send you the Sec final drafts, the Sec final drafts for those five proposals may not be ready by that Jan. 15 deadline. Regards, Judy = = = = = ?? -- remaining draft JSC responses to EURIG documents: Alan Nov. 29 -- example for 9.19.1.2: Examples Group Nov. 30 -- protocol for synchronization between JSC and ISBD RG: Gordon Nov. 30 -- comments on latest draft of Policy/1: JSC reps Nov. 30 -- revised draft of Editor's Guide to JSC: Judy Nov. 30 -- report to JSC on comparison of scope statements in ch. 25-28 with glossary definitions: Judy Nov. 30 -- listing to JSC of glossary terms with parenthetical qualifiers: Judy Nov. 30 -- information to JSC about unresolved vocabulary terms/definitions: Judy Dec. 1 -- report to JSC on comparison of wording in D.1.2: Judy Dec. 1 -- contact with ALA TF on places about being involved in JSC WG on places: Kathy Dec. 3 -- comments on Fast Track entries: JSC reps Dec. 3 -- comments on draft of initial Outcomes announcement: JSC reps Dec. 6 -- comments on terms of reference for ROF Working Group: JSC reps Dec. 6 -- comments on general terms of reference document: JSC reps Dec. 7 -- comments on draft JSC response to the ISBD RG response involving ISBD/Discussion 1 and 2: JSC reps Dec. 8 -- comments on draft annual report: JSC reps Dec. 15 -- examples for variant access points (ALA/24): Examples Group Dec. 15 -- information to Gordon about problems with definition of projected as a Media type: JSC reps Dec. 15 -- preparation of ALA/23/rev: Kathy Dec. 20 -- comments on terms of reference for places working group: JSC reps Dec. 31 -- nominations for working group on places: JSC reps Dec. 31 -- report to JSC on number vs. numeral in RDA: Judy Jan. 1 -- draft to JSC of final Outcomes announcement: Judy [JAK needs to discuss this deadline with Gordon because precedes deadline for comments on four follow-up documents and revision of ALA/23] Jan. 10 -- comments on CCC/11/follow-up: JSC reps Jan. 10 -- comments on final Outcomes document: JSC reps Jan. 13 -- comments on Music/3/follow-up: JSC reps Jan. 13 -- comments on BL/13/LC follow-up: JSC reps Jan. 13 -- probable deadline (not yet announced) for comments on ALA/23/rev: JSC reps Jan. 13 -- posting of new Fast Track entries for April Update in Fast Track log: JSC reps Jan. 15 -- distribution of Sec final document drafts for JSC review: Judy Jan. 15 -- revised draft of element analysis table: Judy Jan. 31 -- comments on Sec final document drafts: JSC reps Jan. 31 -- comments on revised draft of element analysis table: JSC reps
[RDA-L] Apologies: deadline reminder
Dear RDA-L subscribers, I apologize to you for sending an internal JSC document to the RDA-L list. Please ignore this message. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
