Re: [RDA-L] CIP
Thank you! LC-PCC PS 2.2.2.1: LC practice/PCC practice: Do not consider pre-publication cataloging data (foreign or domestic) appearing in the item as a source of information for transcribed elements. On 4/12/2013 7:29 AM, Collins, Kali wrote: See LC PCC PS for 2.2.2.1 (General guidelines) Kali R. Collins Russia Section/Serials Germanic Slavic Division The Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540 e-mail: k...@loc.gov Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and are not official statements of the Library of Congress. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
[RDA-L] RDA CIP
Our previous local practice was to never consider CIP data printed in the book as part of the other preliminaries that were valid as a prescribed source of information under AACR2 2.0B2. RDA 2.2.2.1 says Use as the preferred source of information a source forming part of the resource itself... Is CIP data printed in the book part of the resource? Specifically, if the CIP includes an edition statement that does not appear anywhere else in the volume, should it be included in the bibliographic record? -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA CIP
You consider it so, and others consider it not so. But my question is
really what does RDA say about it, and if it is silent then do we need
an LC-PCC PS to address this question.
On 4/11/2013 3:53 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA CIP
Is CIP data printed in the book part of the resource?
We consider it so.
Specifically, if the CIP includes an edition statement that does not
appear anywhere else in the volume, should it be included in the
bibliographic record?
Yes, although the ISBN is the most frequest information we take from
print CIP. Since the information is in the resource, we would not
bracket an edition statement taken from CIP.
The CIP was created from information supplied by the publisher, so we
see no reason to exclude it as a source.
A CIP title which differs from that on the title page (the title having
changed during publication) would get a 246 1 $iAnnounced as:$aCIP title.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Michael L. Cohen
Interim Head, Cataloging Department
General Library System
University of Wisconsin-Madison
324C Memorial Library
728 State Street
Madison, WI 53706-1494
Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861
Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
[RDA-L] [Un]bracketed page numbers
I understand that in RDA you do not bracket page numbers when listing the bibliography in 504, even if the beginning or ending page number is not printed on the page, but I'm having difficulty finding the exact RDA or LC-PCC PS rule that states this. Can anyone help me out? -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
[RDA-L] Typos in Titles
RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants
'contributor' would make sense. We definitely need a way to distinguish
authors of introductions and prefaces from authors of the main text.
On 2/25/2013 3:20 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly wrote:
Thanks, Mac. The problem with 'writer of added text' is that it is
defined as 'contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual
work by providing text for the non-textual work' - but this compilation
is all textual and all the input is of equal standing. (We aren't
considering using the $4 codes at the moment, for training reasons - too
many new things.)
The I.3 list seems to be almost exclusively for contributions which
postdate the primary intellectual/artistic content and are different in
kind from it, so it lacks provision for compilations and for cases where
the primary content makes use of pre-existing content, e.g. a musical
setting of a poem. In many cases this could be covered by name-title
entries for the pre-existing components, but if there is a large number
of components and/or the components are not clearly attributed, this is
impossible. The assumption may be that if a component does not rate a
name-title entry the creator of that component will never rate an AAP;
but it is fairly common for compilations to have statements of
responsibility for contributors which are worth recording, although the
resource does not give details of who contributed which bit; and it is
generally a Good Thing for statements of responsibility to be harmonised
with AAPs.
I agree that 'contributor' would solve a lot of problems. A catchall,
but we don't want cataloguers to spend too long agonising over which
inappropriate specific relator is least inappropriate. I rather think
that 'contributor' is already being used semi-officially, but I'm not
sure if anything is being done about making it officially official.
Best wishes,
Bernadette
***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
***
-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: 25 February 2013 06:08
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants
Bernadette asked:
,,, And what about the contributors?
There is:
$e writer of added text [MRI: consider writer]
or the code:
$4 wam Writer of accompanying material
Neither of which is spot on. Perhaps we should request contributor?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Michael L. Cohen
Interim Head, Cataloging Department
General Library System
University of Wisconsin-Madison
324C Memorial Library
728 State Street
Madison, WI 53706-1494
Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861
Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
[RDA-L] 533 in RDA
The MARC to RDA mapping does have an entry for 533 which points to 27.1, but the LC-PCC PS for 27.1.1.3 only talks about 775 and 776. So when would use use a 533 field in an RDA record? -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] [and X others]
I haven't seen any responses to this question yet. Is there a 'correct' answer or is it up to local preference? On 11/27/2012 4:53 PM, Michael Cohen wrote: RDA 2.4.1.5 allows for the omission of names performing the same function, and instructs to indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing the description. The example given is Roger Colbourne [and six others] Some records in OCLC use the numerals rather than words, e.g. OCLC #785874875 which has [and 5 others]. Is the use of words vs. numerals prescribed by RDA or PCC, or is this a local decision based on preference of the agency? -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
[RDA-L] [and X others]
RDA 2.4.1.5 allows for the omission of names performing the same function, and instructs to indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing the description. The example given is Roger Colbourne [and six others] Some records in OCLC use the numerals rather than words, e.g. OCLC #785874875 which has [and 5 others]. Is the use of words vs. numerals prescribed by RDA or PCC, or is this a local decision based on preference of the agency? -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
The term consistent position is relative rather than absolute. If $e
is to *precede* $c then it could be either the 2nd or 3rd subfield
depending on whether $b is present. Is that correct?
On 8/14/2012 1:03 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
The always well informated Mark quoted:
Thanks to Joanna for citing this PCC recommendation. OCLC's view on
the order of subfields is also very much influenced by this
recommendation. We believe that having $e in a consistent position
and in the position that is recommended will assist in the quick
identification of RDA records.
Certainly having 040$e in a consistent position would be good. Having
it last, in alphabetical order, we find easier to spot than between
other subfields (after either $a or $b). I don't look forward to
having to redo all our RDA Procedures and programs to allow for
variation in placement for rda$e. Sometimes the simplist solution is
best.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Michael L. Cohen
Interim Head, Cataloging Department
General Library System
University of Wisconsin-Madison
324C Memorial Library
728 State Street
Madison, WI 53706-1494
Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861
Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
[RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Is there a prescribed order to the subfields in 040? I see some RDA records with $e after $a [e.g. OCLC #316058624] and some with $e between $b and $c [e.g. OCLC #699487827] and some with the subfields in alpha order [e.g. OCLC #780483684]. ??? -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
[RDA-L] Order of subfields in 040
The RDA Workform for Books includes this field (where XXX = OCLC institution code): XXX ǂb ǂe rda ǂc XXX and MARC Field Help for 040 instructs: Enter subfield ‡e immediately after subfield ‡a. So which is wrong, the Workform or the Field Help? -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
And wouldn't it help everyone in thier local processing and decision making if RDA floor records were not encoded as full? On 05/20/11, Adam L. Schiff wrote: I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where that co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with authors and other contributors? I doubt if they would like it very much at all. Exactly, couldn't agree more. And that's precisely why we have CHOSEN not to apply the minimum at OUR institution for the vast majority of what we do. Eight months and seven thousand records later, I can say with some confidence that RDA has presented no barrier or hindrance for Chicago to accomplish exactly what you are arguing for, James. But that doesn't mean that a different institution will make, what is for them, an equally-valid but different treatment decision for the same resource; the contribution they make to the collective is no less valuable. If a resource is peripheral to their collection and they don't need to invest in creating as robust metadata as we need for the same resource, which may be central to our collection, then we will add what we need. That's why we are here. --Chris. I basically agree with everything the Chris has said in his posts. Where I do have some fears however, is that many libraries, including mine, which will very likely choose to provide full access to all creators named in a resource when we are doing original cataloging, will, because of staffing and efficiency needs, have to accept copy from institutions that chose not to go above the floor. I asked our head of acquisitions what percentage of materials we buy goes through cataloging in her unit without ever seeing a copy cataloger. For print monographs, she estimated 90% or higher of our purchased books. Many of these are books with just one author or editor, but for the rest of them, I don't think we we be able to shift the processing of them to higher level staff to add missing access points that we would have included had we done the original cataloging. So I do hope that as a community we do generally provide more than the floor, and Chris' comments that this is what he is seeing at Chicago is very encouraging. Luckily we are using WorldCat Local as our primary online discovery tool, and so any library that enhances a record that we have accepted with a lower level of access/completeness will be helping us out greatly. This is a powerful argument for network level cataloging. And I would hope that OCLC would be able to develop a more robust notification/record delivery system as well for users that would like to be able to get upgrades to records in their local systems. Right now as I understand it, if a record coded full level is enhanced by some other library, that type of change does not fall into the notification system, because there is no change in encoding level. Adam Schiff ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger * * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** -- Michael L. Cohen Head, Copy Cataloging Catalog Maintenance Units General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
Yes this discussion occurs about this time every year, but we solve it, in the absence of a publication date, by recording the copyright date as published on the piece regardless of when the thing was received (per AACR2 1.4F6). We CAN blame RDA for its instruction in 2.8.6.6 to supply the date or approximate date of publication when it is NOT printed on the piece, thus introducing multiple records for the same manifestation and going against the principle of exact transcription. John Attig wrote: On 11/24/2010 12:36 PM, Mike Tribby wrote: So the 2010 date, which does not actually appear on the item, would be recorded in an RDA record based simply on when the item appeared at the cataloging agency based on... what? What if the item arrived at one agency on December 31, 2010, but arrived at other cataloging agencies' offices on January 2, 2011 owing to vagaries in holiday scheduling for delivery companies? The book would then be a [2010] publication some places, but just as legitimately a 2011 for other agencies? Just another thing to love about RDA! This truly is the season of giving, isn't it? You cannot blame this on RDA. This discussion occurs about this time of year *every year* on AUTOCAT when people begin receiving materials with next year's publication date but which have obviously already been published. RDA does not change the fact that this does happen, nor the arguments about how correctly to record the facts. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu -- Michael L. Cohen Head, Copy Cataloging Catalog Maintenance Units General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
[RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
We just received a book with no publication date and a copyright date of 2011. Under AACR2 we would catalog this as DtSt: s Date1: 2011 300 $c c2011 with a date of 2011 as the last element of the call number. Under RDA (I assume) we would catalog this as DtSt: t Date1: 2010, Date2: 2011 300 $c [2010], ©2011 with a date of 2010 as the last element of the call number. Is that correct? -- Michael L. Cohen Head, Copy Cataloging Catalog Maintenance Units General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Conflicting statements in LCCN Vol. 16, no. 4?
Not to mention the fact that On the Record claims that LC enjoys
neither a mandate to be a national library, nor funding concomitant with
playing such a role and yet LCCN Vol. 16, no. 4 clearly identifies LC
as a national library.
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Don't these two statements from the most recent LCCN contradict
each other?
Dr. Marcum states: The Library of Congress embraces the
Working Group's recommendations ... which as I recall suggested
suspending work on RDA.
On the other hand: The three U.S. national libraries agreed on
a joint commitment to the further development and completion of
RDA, with decisions on implementation to be made jointly after review
and testing of the completed code.
What happened to the four Anglo national libraries' joint implementation
group?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Michael L. Cohen
Head, Copy Cataloging Catalog Maintenance Units
General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison
324C Memorial Library
728 State Street
Madison, WI 53706-1494
Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
