Adam Schiff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mac, I think what was being suggested was not changing the term parallel
title in the rules, but that catalog users would not be familiar with
such a term, so that when we create notes about parallel titles we should
use more understandable language.
Deborah Fritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[]Mac - It would seem to me that parallel titles are as much a part of
[] DF - I think it is more likely that it is because an alternate title is
connected to the title by the word 'or'
In my view, alternate titles should be coded ,$bor - so that gmd
Renette Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.6.1.3. Recording numeric and/or alphabetic designations.
RD - I would like to see an option that would allow catalogers to always
record this information in an unformatted 362 as Began with: Vol. 1, no. 6,
even if they have the first issue in hand.
the comments of Mr. J. McRee Elrod (below). Our
academic clientele who are knowledgeable about the literature prefer
the older form of entry. Those that are not knowledgeable, come to
appreciate the older form of entry.
Mr. J. McRee Elrod's point, although he does not emphasize it, is
that lawyers
John Radencich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.3.5.1 - Fefinition (for earlier/later title)
Vols. for 1996- have title: [etc.].
If all you have is 1996, wouldn't that be 246 1 $iVariant title for
$f1966$a ... Vols for 1965 and/or 1967 may or may not have that
form. We do need those angle
John Hostage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Revista de
derecho internacional y del Mercosur
---
direito internacional e do Mercosul
245 00 $aRevista de derecho internacional y del
Schupbach ,Mr William [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They may be unknown to the person cataloguing them, but that's more of
a statement about the mind of the cataloguer than about the document.
This is a very good point.
[no place]
The place certainly exists.
[place unnamed]
I'm sure the place
Hal Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subsequently, the publisher of the book issues a reprint with a
corrected title page, or maybe issues a corrected title page with
instructions to paste it over the original (I have actually received
such pages); or the issuing agency of the electronic document
Charles Croissant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... German Ansetzungssachtitel. It can be circumscribed
as the form of the title established for use as an access point. It
could also be described as a standardized title or normalized title.
Again to MARC speak, it sounds like a 222 for
Bernhard Eversberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, it makes a lot more sense to stretch publication to include
everything made available for any audience ...
Fine with me. But there are many information resources we catalogue
which are not considered published, e.g., theses (a fiction on our
Diane I. Hillmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oftentimes, the RDA (like traditional cataloging) herds catalogers to
make decisions about what is primary or secondary and relegates
the latter to the notes area.
It's refreshing to have someone step back from the trees and view the
forest as Ms
Tina Shrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main reason that I object to the idea of returning to latest entry =
cataloging is that I think it ultimately would make machine processing =
and display of serial records more difficult.
I agree with you *except* that we need to take a closer look at
Patzer, Karin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finally our proposal: Use latest entry for minor changes and
successive entry for major changes.
This accords exactly with the demands of our special library
customers, so it's what we do regardless of what AACR2 currently says.
Libraries want the record
It's difficult to respond to NLM/MLA's reaction to RDA, because I like
Hal agree with the basic premise, but disagree with even more of the
points which followed than he.
RDA should be delayed until there is consensus, and there is a high
probability of general acceptance. I also agree that
AACR2 makes a distinction between pseudonyms (which may as literary
identities be used as prime entry AACR2 22.B2), and fictitious
characters which may not be so used. It seems to me that if one does
not know the name of the human author, the name of the fictitious
character is as much a
Diane I. Hillmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gosh, I think lawyers use lots more terms than that. In my
experience, it's the computer scientists who use entity.
Wveryone was waiting to see what British Columbia would use on the
marriage license forms which would work for both heterosexual and
We had sixty responses to our advertisement on Autocat and elsewhere
for distance cataloguers. Of those, only two have sent usable test
records. Some had difficulty with basic cataloguing knowledge, others
with computer skills.
SLC still needs two distance cataloguers to prepare about 25 to
The ALA/ALCTS/SS Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee Task Force
for Reviewing RDA Documents' final report on the Dec. 2005 draft of
RDA Part I available at this url, represents a LOT of detailed work.
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~rd13/CommentsOnRDAPartI.pdf
While on the one
Gordon Pew said on Autocat:
... Since AACR2 1.7A1 tells us to precede each note by a full stop [etc.],
think of the note itself,
rather than the quotation, as ending in a period/full stop.
This is one of AACR2's more stupid provisions since (1) the full stop
is keyed at the end of the
The comments of PCC SCS on RDA as submitted by Chair Paul J, Weiss may
be viewed as a pdf file at:
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/SCScommentsRDAPart1.pdf
The mixed use of I, we, I've, and we've in the text of the
comments makes it difficult to know what is the position of the PCC SCS
working
Kristi Warab said on Autocat:
An easy solution -- transcribe the publisher name EXACTLY as it appears on
the title page. In other words, don't shorten anything. Catalog card days
are gone. Some consistency would be nice.
Shortening of the publisher name is the main reason for the multiple
The present draft of RDA 2/7.0.3 Transcription [of publisher]
instructs that publisher be transcribed in the from in which it
appears There is no mention of shortest recognizable form, as
in AACR2. There is no mention of abbreviations, but there is an
example of Dept., and a reference to
Bernhard Eversberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only sensible solution is to subject publishers' names to authority
control. This ensures reliable searchability as well as trustworthy
transcription.
Yes, for access points (110/710); not for description (260). The
function of imprint in
A lot of work went into ALA's response to RDA Pt. 1:
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/docs/5rda-part1-alaresp.pdf
Most of the comments are arranged by RDA rule number, but the text is
very uneven in giving the caption of the rule beside the rule number.
This makes much of the
Kevin M. Randall wrote (in the Autocat LC series thread):
The two purposes--transcription and controlled access--are
entirely separate issues and must not be confused with each other. A
controlled access point must remain free to be modified as changes are
made in the authority record, so that
Thanks for this Rennette.
A joint CONSER/CRCC working group was put together to write a discussion
paper, and that paper is available at:
http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/discussion-paper-limited.pdf
While I agree with the general thrust of the paper, and the discussion,
I miss consideration of
The outcomes of the most recent JSC meeting at:
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/0604out.html
have good news and bad news.
The good news is that RDA elements will be mapped to MARC21 fields in
Appendix D. This will take much guess work out of creating a MARC
record. Think of all those
In searching for videorecording records via Z39.50, one finds an
astounding variety of what is where in terms of statement of
responsibility vs. production note.
Some have a long paragraph in 245/$c, and no 508. Others make a break
in production credits, but there is no consistency in where
The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC) announced that
the draft of RDA part A, chapters 6-7 has been made available for
comment.
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdadraftch6-7.html
A quick reading produced several reactions.
Chapter 6 (Relationships) and Chapter 7
Dear Marsha,
Thanks for all the explication.
I can see the family name as prime access point for a collection of
family papers, just as I can see the criminal defendant as prime
access point for his/her trial transcript. But I don't see either as
authors.
One of the reasons I so dislike
Carlos Lopez said:
Description, to me, is very different from classification: In one you
are dealing purely and solely with the item in front of you ...
If you accept the principles of FRBR, you are dealing with that item
in relations of other manifestations of the work.
you are gathering
A recent contributor to this list said he or she had not seen a card
catalog that distinguished in filing between main and added entries for a
person. The old LC filing rules (pre-John Rather rules) did make this
distinction.
I do not know if the frozen LC card catalog off the Main
Richard A Carpenter wrote:
For other editions, see the main entry.
I know it may sound like urban legend, but my elder son when using the
univeristy library while still a secondary school student, actually went
to the front door of the library is search of information, upon seeing
that
I said:
6.2.2.2.1b.3 gives situations when not to provide an access point for
series, including nothing in common but physical form, and numbering
only for control and postage purposes. The presence or absence of a
subject word seems a better litmus to me. How are we supposed to know
the
John Hostage said:
As for capitalization, do the rules have to address this beyond saying
to follow the usage of the language in question?
The examples follow no known practice, Only the article and first
word after the article are capitalized, not every major word as in
standard English.
Kevin M. Randall said:
The linking fields are there for the purpose of creating notes and linking
related records.
The authors of RDA seem to me to be thinking in terms of FRBR, linking
in particular, when writing the provisions under discussion. If you
have a link to a record, you presumably
Jonathan Rochkind said:
In truth, it may be easier and simpler to unambiguosly identify a
target record with a symbolic identifier based link, which I believe
is what Diane Hillmann is suggesting.
This, like so much of AACR2 and RDA, assumes a large collection which
has the other item. and
Ed Jones said:
My point is that this system works _only_ if the ISBD punctuation is
_preceding_ punctuation. It's not the fault of ISBD that MARC has never
been optimized to supply it automatically.
It also only works if fields are displayed in ISBD order. In far too
many OPACs, the ISBD is
Forwarded message
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:17:11 -0700
From: Michael Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Collective entities
Dear Mac
Greetings from Seoul!
Could you post the appended (or the attached) ...
Thanks, Michael
COLLECTIVE ENTITIES
At first
ALA (the (the redbook) entered engravings of an art work under the
original artist (19B). AACR (261B) and AACR2 (21.16) enter engravings
of an art work under the engraver.
Is my memory playing me tricks, or does RDA revert to the ALA rule?
I've not been successful in finding the wording which
In responding to the discussion of whether cataloguers should abandon
transcription, and rely instead of provided metatadata or harvested
electron desciption, an e-correspondent off list reported that he had
found many very good examples of descrepances in vendor records. He
suggests that I look
Musha Schutt wrote:
I believe we're comparing Red Delicious with Granny Smith here. There is a
distinction between alternate titles, as in 246 alternate forms of title,
and alternatIVE titles as given on a title page, as in Uncle Tom's cabin,
or, Life among the lowly, so defined in the AACR2
Would RDA have us substitute approximately for ca. in collation?
(I just finished cataloguing some DVDs with approximate running times.)
Cheez.
__ __
{__ | / J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
___} |__ \__ Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/0610out.html
One brickbat and one bouquet for the October JSC meeting outcomes.
Brickbat: The ISBD is not listed as a source standard for the
development of RDA, This represents a massive retreat from
international standardization, and a major stumbling
/
___} |__ \__
Forwarded message
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:00:39 -0600
From: James Weinheimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Those long English RDA inclusions
J. McRee Elrod wrtoe:
Would RDA have us substitute approximately for ca. in collation
Bernie Sloan said:
Advances in search-engine technology, the popularity of the Internet
and the influx of electronic information resources have greatly changed
the way libraries do their work. To address those changes, the Library
of Congress has convened a Working Group on the Future of
+
X
XXX
X
GOD JUL
BUON ANNO
FELIZ NATAL
I recommend a book (given me for Christmas by librarian wife Norma) to
all librarians: Alberto Manguiel's The Library at Night. It is a
paean to libraries, and includes a wealth of history and culture over
centuries and continents. It's appreciation of the glories of past
Middle Eastern and
/
___} |__ \__
Forwarded message
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 08:01:07 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. McRee Elrod)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CAL file questions (fwd)
Dan Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
The CONSER standard record has been delayed.
Let's hope this allows reconsideration of coding RDA style less than
complete records with unjustified access points as LDR/17 blank full
level.
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/conserdelay.html
If RDA is adopted as written with statement of
Roy Tennant said:
The point is that if you don't think about enabling multiple uses up
front it's often too late to fix it later.
Some of the uses being discussed are more a matter of MARC and OPAC
software, than of cataloguing rules.
If too much vital information (e.g. statement of
Adam L. Schiff said:
In addition to the possibility of separate subfield coding for surname and
forename(s) within the MARC 100 field, another possible way to deal with
this is to define a new field in the authority format (would it also be
needed in the bib format?) for the display form of the
In response to James Weinheimer's saying that different genres require
differing treatment, I said that I suspect it is a futile effort at
copying print practices that led to the confusing separation of
responsible persons/bodies between 245$c and 508 for videorecordings
of movies. In these days
Roy Tennant said:
We part company here. I really don't think Notes on the source of the title
proper and Notes on the source of the edition statement, for example,
should be mandatory.
Who said they were? Those were not among the notes I said were
needed. Those our customers demand are for
Diane I. Hillmann posted this url:
http://futurelib.pbwiki.com/Framework
There is a sample descriptive set illustrating a complex set of data,
reflecting the FRBR entities.
It seems to me the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse.
The sample descriptive set would hardly serve in a
I said of the sample descriptive set posted at:
http://futurelib.pbwiki.com/Framework
Why is its genre called a subject? It is, one assumes, an
autobiography, not a book about autobiographies as the descriptive set
says.
Certainly this item would be of no use to a patron seeking works
Chronicle Careers
The Editors:
It was heart warming to read Susan Ashton's paean to the joys of inter
library loan (What Goes Around March 14th).
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/archives//jobs/news/2007/03/2007031401c/careers
I wonder if those who enjoy this feature of North American
Jonathan Rochkind said:
I see the Model, Schema, Guidance and Encoding as _components_ of a
metadata system.
The difficulty I see in dividing these components is that they may
become discordant. They must be in tandem. The contradictions
between AACR2 and MARC21 are cases in point, e.g.,
Phillip David said in explaining (for more clearly that ever before)
what is meant by having components of a meta data schema:
RDA should be purely a 'guidance' tool in order to operate well as
part of a metadata system, and should not include schema or encoding
specifications. If MARC is to
It is important that all components of any cataloguing scheme be
consistent in selection and order of data elements, from transcription
through encoding to display. So far no one seems to be picking up on
the excellent work done by Martha Yee on display standards. We seem
to be intent on
Comments on RDA Part A Chapter 3
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdadraftch3.html
Punctuation category 2: We have sufficient granularity with ISBD
punctuation. It is already possible to program to select particular
elements if desired. There is no need to deconstruct the extent
string
James Weinheimer has given me permission to quote him from Autocat:
When it comes to the information in the catalog record, I am very
conservative and don't want to change much, and only after a great deal of
discussion. As the Russian proverb says: Measure three times before you cut.
A
Our English client libraries use the English forms of the names of
Canadian government agencies. Our French client libraries use French
forms of the names of the same agencies. Most Canadian Federal
libraries have two records, one with each form, for bilingual
publications.
This is all taken
Bernhard Eversberg asked:
What is urber?
It wasn't in my spell check so I probably spelled it wrong. I could
think of no single synonym. It's from my heard vocabulary. I've
heard it used to mean something like over arching or archetypical, I
hoped my analogy of ISBD(G) to other
Roy said:
That would be a typo. The word was supposed to be über, the German word for
above or over.
The slang version I heard is urber:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=urber
I'll switch to ueber since this DOS reader can't do diacritics.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee
If we may comment on FRAD here (I've already commented to the
e-address provided), I think more granularity is needed in the
definition of Rules, which are defined as including rules, rule
interpretations, and codes for coding. Since these three in the
library world are often in conflict, one
Johathan Rochkind posteda about regarding practices as rules:
This seems quite right to me. Why do you object? Because they are
not universally applicable?
Because they are in conflict. AACR2 and LAC say catalogue the
reproduction in hand; LCRI says catalogue the original. MARC21 says
Karen Coyle kindly posted the url for information concerning
the second of the open meetings of the Working Group on the Future of
Bibliographic Control,
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/meetings/index.html
The third question being asked at that meeting begins with the
statement: Data
The London meeting proposes to:
* development of an RDA Element Vocabulary
U. ISBD(G)?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
Sorry to have posted so much in this thread. You'll be happy to know
that I'll be away at a conference May 15th-21st.
Jean Harden spoke if support of MARC fixed fields:
For instance, our OPAC uses the 007 to allow limiting to CDs, rather
than just sound recordings of any sort (which can
Tina Shrader said:
I want a cataloger interface that lets me scan a title page, or point to
a digital document and identify the title, author (corporate or
personal), and other descriptive information without having to rekey it.
You are still rekeying? A large part of our work is cataloguing
Andrea Leigh said:
ISBD is problematic from a systems standpoint because it is a data
model, a display convention, an encoding standard, and a content
standard all rolled into one.
You mean ISBD *punctuation*. The selection, order, and names of
element to be included in a bibliographic
Tina Shrader said:
For born-digital items, though, I don't want to copy and paste the
information into a completely separate record.
Have you tried MARCit for websites? Similar programming for pdf
should be possible. No change in MARC is needed, just a technique for
mapping harvested
Jenn Riley said:
If the distinction between 130 and 240 can't be expressed in words (in
any language), how can anyone ever *learn* this distinction?
It can be expressed. 130 is uniform title as prime entry. 240 is
uniform title as filing title after a prime entry.
Why then does it exist
Jenn Riley said:
I'm advocating the notion that the label doesn't much matter, as the
real meaning of the field will have to be defined in (potentially
extensive) human-readable text elsewhere ,,,
With a number label you *have* to look at the documentation until it
becomes subconscious (like
Apart from sometimes requesting a term from AACR2 List 1 (e.g.,
[graphic]), or that we qualify a GMD (e.g., [videorecording (DVD)],
the most frequent request we receive for a GMD contrary to AACR2 is
for 245$h[equipment].
The term [realia] is simply unknown to most, and if thought to mean
Janet Swann Hill has been asked to create questions about RDA for an
ALA Council meeting with JSC representatives. These are my
suggestions:
Why should the Anglo American bibliographic community abandon the
selection and order of elements of ISBD, the most successful library
related
Matthew Beacon said in response to my questions about RDA
The basic conditions of information use (but not the motives) have
changed since the ISBD elements were created.
The ISBD elements for a bibliographic description were not created.
They are a codification of elements arrived at over
With his permission, I'm forwarding some remarks by Daniel
CannCasciato in response to a defense of RDA.
Daniel wrote:
I'll make some follow-up comments. Matthew Beacom's response to Mac's
questions highlighted some problems for me. I'll say at the outset
that I've found the draft version
Revised draft of RDA part A, chapters 6-7:
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdadraftch6-7.html
Revised RDA scope document:
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda.html#scope
If a prospective cataloguer library school student were exposed to the
Scope document's chart of elements (all
Mark Ehlert said:
According to the introductory comments, Column A lists the RDA
'elements' (i.e., elements, element sub-types, and
sub-elements) in the order in which they appear in the most recent
drafts of RDA,
Yes, this is my prime objection to RDA in a nutshell. The nonsensical
order of
Adam L. Schiff said:
Yes, the access points are not always complete (i.e., not in the full form
that they can be found in the LC/NACO Authority File).
But to omit data from the *middle* of an access point, as in the case
of designation of function examples, is misleading.
The issue of what
Martha M. Yee said:
The fundamental assumption behind this mapping project, as explained in the
first paragraph, is an incorrect assumption. The elements of the
bibliographic description cannot logically be mapped to one and only one
FRBR entity.
Which points up the basic falicy of the
Jonathan Rochkind said:
How can the system magically create what the cataloger never recorded
in the first place?
At the time of first cataloguing of an item which is a new
work/manifestation/expression/item. relationships among these abstract
concepts don't exist to be recorded. Whether or
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
A movie called The shaft, a horror film about a possessed elevator,
was originally released in the UK under the title Down ... based on a
Dutch film De Lift.
In our shop, if verified, this information would be a 503 plus a
couple of 730s. No clicking (or RDA)
Anthony Gordon said:
Sorry, but that's rather a bibliocentric view. Edition makes no sense for
sound recordings ...
Edition and/or version would be better understood than neologisms
such as expression and manifestation, even in relation to film or
sound recordings.
We've long accepted that
J H Bowman said:
I understand that there will no longer be a
primary/secondary access point distinction, which
makes we wonder what will be in Part B too!
Ummm. Without such a distinction, how is one to make added and
subject entries for works? Create bibliographies? Generate hitlists
Ed Jones said:
ISBD, including the draft 2006 Consolidated ISBD, defines the title
proper as including the alternative title (Consolidated ISBD 1.1.1).
IMNSHO ISBD's major flaw and inconsistency.
But to maintain compatibility with ISBD, such a change would need to be
accompanied by a
Robert Maxwell said:
Except that in this case, if we consider or to be a part of the title,
we *don't* want the system to skip over it in filing.
Speak for yourself sir.
Personally, I want all my Twelfth night, or, What you will's
together under Twelfth night, not split between the shorter
I don't understand. Are you saying you think the title
Twelfth night, or, What you will
should file as
Twelfth night What you will?
No. I think it should file under title proper as Twelfth night, to
prevent having two files, one under the title proper (when that
appears alone or as a 240),
Kevin M. Randall said:
I think what Robert was getting at was: When the entire phrase (including
alternate title) is indexed, should it file as Twelfth night, or, What you
will or as Twelfth night What you will?
Of course if both title proper and alternate titles are being indexed
as one
I said:
Nonfiling for or, as one poster suggested, would only be needed if
it were at the beginning of the alternate title with only one subfield
code, e.g., Twelfth night,$bor, What you will would require or (3
spaces) to be nonfiling ...
I should have added: if the alternate title is being
I find very disturbing the concept advanced by some who favour an even
more radical departure from AACR2 than RDA, that statements of
responsibility can be replaced by subfield coding fore names in entry
points, allowing display in direct order; ignoring both the importance
of connecting words
Johnathan Rockind said:
This seems like a perfectly reasonable and good solution to me,
On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
I think from our discussion on this matter is that RDA needs
another element to record what I will call the linking word or
term in the title.
How does
Jonathan Rochkind said:
It does not differ, it is the same semantic content. Surely, RDA and
MARC need to be compatible. Just as both need to be compatible with
ISBD, if the ISBD elements are still important.
Total agreement here.
But RDA needs to be expressed in language other than MARC.
But it would perpetuate one of the nastiest MARC21 features: the
punctuation at the field or subfield end.
Why not include it in $i?
Mac
Karen Coyle said:
The entities in a model like FRBR are just the things you are going
to work with. For example, in AACR and MARC we have names; in the
former they are headings (authors, added authors) ...
Such over simplification worries me, perhaps because models we have
seen of possible
Karen Coyle said:
Could you explain how authority work records would take care of the FRBR
Group 1 entities? That might be a nifty solution if it could be made to
work. (There's nothing that says that the FRBR entities must be
expressed in the bibliographic record, at least not yet.)
Reading this phrase from a current novel reminded me of RDA: ...
written in that bizarrely dense academic prose that's the literary
equivalent of mud ... --Stephen McCauley.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
Adam Schiff said:
Once LC, OCLC, PCC, etc. issue their content requirements, I suspect
our actual practices for providing access points will not change all
that much from AACR2 to RDA.
If RDA can not replace AACR2, but instead AACR2 will be replaced by
RDA rule interpretations which are not
1 - 100 of 1397 matches
Mail list logo
