NO, NO, NO!!!
(Yes, the vehemence is intentional and warranted at the gross contravention
of RDA's stipulations in this matter.)
RDA explicitly eliminates the use of AACR2's Latin abbreviations of [S.l. :
s.n.]. The use of [n.d.] from AACR1 was eliminated in AACR2.
There is provision in RDA to
Different carriers constitute different manifestations, warranting separate
records. As Mac Elrod responded, the physical descriptions would be
different.
The single-record/multi-version approach had an appeal at one point,
primarily to avoid presenting patrons with multiple records for a single
My understanding of transferred to digital printing is that the publisher
has converted in-house the typography originally presented in mechanical
form to a digital equivalent. As a process internal to the publishing
house, I am not certain why they feel it is necessary to identify this,
unless
This is decidedly NOT a case of reprint or reproduction. It is a new
manifestation with a new typographical layout.
My understanding of reprints are that they use the same production plates
(to use mechanical printing terminology) as the original, although by an
agency or in a different context
To address the only question posed, concerning the RDA
Content/Media/Carrier types (recorded in the MARC21 Bibliographic format in
fields 336-338):
We are all used to encoding record types and carrier types within the
MARC21 format -- in the LDR and field 007. They however share several
Sorry, close but no cigar, as they say.
While a sequence printed on both sides is usually counted in terms of pages,
and when printed only on one side is usually counted in terms of leaves, the
fundamental definition is that a page constitutes a given face of a leaf and a
leaf constitutes the
Martin Kelleher wrote:
...doesn't 264 1 pretty much replicate 260, however?
---
In a simple scenario, yes, since we usually record publication statements from
AACR2 and prior cataloging codes there. BUT, the scope of field 260 and the
Don Charuk wrote:
[snip]
If the author is provided on the title page and the illustrator is provide on
the title page verso can they both be transcribe in the statement of the
responsibility? Does not the rule 2.4.2.2 state the SOR should come from the
same source as the title proper. If so
Julie Moore wrote:
Yes, it was the [197-?] scenario that I was thinking of, where there is nothing
that tells you any kind of a date ... but you have the feeling that it was
probably made in the 70s ... possibly just based on your own experience. I've
been searching all over the place in RDA
Julie Moore asks:
in the instance where I am pretty sure that the item was published in 2013, but
there is no hint of a date anywhere ... is it OK for the cataloger to record:
246 _1 $a xxx : $b yyy : $c [2013?]
--
1.9.2.3 Probable
Can the question be clarified? DVD is not an aspect reflected in the GMD. Nor
are search limits by record type or specific format usually driven by the GMD
but instead by the coding in the fixed field or field 007. Both of these
fields are still employable in MARC records conveying RDA data.
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
With the demise of MARBI, I hope LC will continue adding needed codes.
--
MARBI was (well, is for the next 7 weeks) an ALA body. It has functioned as
the de facto approval body for the deliberations of the MARC Advisory
Committee, a
I don’t have the automated authority control turned on in my Innovative
installation. I’ve just downloaded and overlaid the authority records. The
Global Update functionality works very well to flip the bibliographic headings
– a reasonable compromise between fully automated and a one-by-one
Which perhaps begs the question of why have two different Type codes for the
same kind of content? (Which I acknowledge is an encoding and communication
format question rather than an RDA question.)
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
The Welcome message one received when first subscribing provides the proper
protocol for unsubscribing. I quote it here for interested parties'
convenience:
You may leave the list at any time by sending a SIGNOFF RDA-L command to
The Library of Congress has extensive (some might say overwhelming) training
materials on RDA. They are all free.
This is the general page:
http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/index.html
This link in particular (which is not readily obvious from the descriptions on
the
Francis Lapka wrote:
I have what is probably a naïve question, touching on RDA and BIBFRAME. I'll
preface the question with an example. Imagine a resource with the following
title page:
An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the Elder.
Enriched with explanatory
Count me in as one in the Anglo-American world very interested in the way
[cataloging (not just authority control)] is done in Germany.I have been
particularly fortunate to sit in on the MARBI meetings, where the DNB
Representative Reinhold Heuvelmann has given some insights into the
A major criticism of mine regarding RDA has been the heavy reliance on terms
rather than codes. Mac's comment makes me realize that the codes would be
equally language dependent -- what is a mnemonic code in English would be
random gibberish to colleagues elsewhere. Where I might previously
See AACR2 1.7A1 for prescribed punctuation in notes, which is largely
reproduced at RDA D.1.2.8. In brief though,semi-colons internal to notes are
not prescribed, but are merely grammatical.
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
So, the library in question has already decided that 1) the GMD does not work
for them -- they had to replace standard GMD terms for specific terms of their
own construction, and 2) that they are willing to invest in the effort to
modify their records from the standard in order to meet their
This is one of the more troubling by-products of the incomplete conversion of
the rules from AACR2's exclusively textual foundation to RDA's vision of a
computer facilitated environment of embedded links. There are many instances
where RDA says RECORD, when it would have been preferable for it
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 have to join Karen's bandwagon here. I am profoundly disappointed by the
extreme negativism in response to programmatic changes she suggests. Yes, of
course there are exceptions! That's why the cataloging rules are a 3
three-ring binder rather than a 16 page pamphlet. But in the name of
By all means, and let us maintain our card catalog in case the local database
goes down. Just make sure you haven't moved it to the basement because open
flames as a backup light source when the overheads lose power aren't a good
idea in a building full of paper.
These are the two faces of
I think the question is referring back to filing rules of the card catalog.
I'm not certain how closely they met the conditions of the strong reading
because I'm not entirely certain of the original query myself.
From the 1956 LC filing rules, p. 140 has the following statements regarding
the
J. McRee Elrod responded to a quoted snippet:
Content: cartographic image
Content: text
Media needed to access content: unmediated
Carrier: volume
Extent: 1 atlas (68 pages)
Or it could be Content: cartographic image, text
But why not map, text? RDA media terms often seem to use phrases where
[Forwarding my full post from AUTOCAT, with apologies to double-subscribers]
What I find interesting in this thread is that correspondents argue for the
value of the GMD while simultaneously indicating that it doesn't work for them
as configured in AACR2, namely through the manner in which they
In the main, the thrust of the discussion paper is an obvious implication of
the ideas in FRAD and of the authority record changes in RDA. It is a
necessary development as we move from construction of headings to creation of
robust, element-configured authority records as the locus of
Barbara Tillett wrote:
A word of caution on abandoning undifferentiated names. When we were doing the
regional IFLA meetings for the International Cataloguing Principles, the
Chinese told me how glad they would be to have a capability to use
undifferentiated names, as their cataloging code
Karen Coyle wrote:
FRBR claims to be based on a relational model, as in relational database.
I do not think FRBR self-identifies as a relational model. It is an
Entity-Relationship model. This may seem like hair-splitting but, while the
E-R model also framed
I fail to understand how it is possible to remove 'user tasks' from a platform.
They don't exist there in the first place. The user tasks exist OUTSIDE any
platform and reside WITH the USER.
No matter what tool or platform is used, there has to be sufficient hooks
associated with the
Karen Coyle wrote:
Mac, can you give more info on 1) difficulties caused ...
--
As Mac subsequently replied, the use of relator terms can cause havoc with the
display and indexing in the ILS. Some relator terms were more common in card
days and
So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that a single author is
good enough when there are more than three, it is OK.
However, when RDA affords catalogers the option to follow that
historical arbitrary determination to its logical end (by extending its
application to numbers of authors
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
There were no main entry changes for monographs as dramatic as the
dropping
of the rule of three.
For me, the most difficult earlier change was entry for serials and
series. I had spent years with Journal of chemistry being entered
under title, and Journal of the Chemical
I'm sorry but no, it shouldn't, for the same reason that temporary
interruptions to our online journal subscriptions do not argue for a
return to print only access for those resources, for the same reason
that temporary interruptions to a bibliographic utility do not argue for
a return to strictly
Kathleen Lamantia wrote:
Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's conception
(work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would answer your 2nd
question, is the creator the same? with yes. As to valid alternatives, that
seems to me to be cataloger's judgment,
Mark Rose wrote:
The whole notion of Work in FRBR seems unnecessary in my view. We don't
deal in Platonic ideals of what a work is but in actual productions, the
physicality of the work, i.e. expression down to item.
---
The statement above is self-contradictory.
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
That would be a good solution. That, I think, is incompatible with MARC,
even MARCXML, yeah?
Quoting Mark Ehlert (I think):
A better solution might be a 3-level field structure that would
contain two or more complete data fields with all the necessary
subfields.
When one has questions about RDA and is so closely involved in the
import of RDA to one's work, wouldn't prudence argue for acquiring a
copy of the standard in question? Even if one wishes to eschew RDA's
use generally and wants to avoid the ongoing subscription costs, there
is now a paper
Not to detract from Karen's statement, but etc. and other do mean
something -- that the category encompasses things besides those
explicitly identified that, while of a similar nature, are too obscure
or insufficiently fleshed out to warrant the intellectual effort to
label, identify, or
I do not see a conflict between either statement. Mark posits a
relationship that is not automatically direct. Mac offers examples of
how the potential relationships are not automatically direct and how
they can vary with respect to which other date the copyright date is
related.
The nebulosity
Ms. McGrath, author of the presentation, readily identifies as red
herrings the issues on which Mac focuses his rebuttal. There are more
substantial issues presented by the author, namely the structural
difficulties of MARC both with respect to encoding reliably
machine-actionable data and to
Although not as widely recognized as it should be, ISBD is a unitary
standard to address content, communication, and display. The latter two
aspects are intertwined in how ISBD covers both the Areas and the
punctuation to formulate the data in a unit card.
Whether online catalogs retain the
I unfortunately won't address no. 17. To other matters though, I do not
think that what is stipulated in #3 and #4 are absolutely correct. RDA
specifies the RECORDING of birth, death, and flourished dates as such.
Likewise, it specifies the RECORDING of fuller forms of the name. It
does not
I think Mac's point would be, how does one reconcile the following
possibilities:
1) Hyde, J. S., Delamater, J. (2008). Human Sexuality (10th ed.) New
York: McGraw-Hill.
2) Delamater, J., Hyde, J. S. (2008). Human Sexuality (10th ed.) New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Something is driving the citation
The Thomale article in Code4Lib which Jonathan cites is a MUST READ. It
was profoundly eye opening and highlights the issues with our data being
only machine-readable in the communication sense rather than in the
utilization sense. As Thomale describes our records, they are documents
not data.
The problem being, and this goes to Jim Weinheimer's comments as well,
that in the case of non-collective titles, as the Thomale article
identifies, the 245$a isn't enough. There are additional titles buried
in the 245$b or worse in the 245$c. Yes, those titles should be traced
in a 740 or
An modest proposal: perhaps a file of 3x5 cards produced by a manual typewriter
will provide the desired reliability?
On a less satirical note, to harness the benefits of technology, one must make
certain compromises with respect to one's independence from it. But with the
continued
It was reported that these two elements emerged from FRAD.
Unfortunately, I don't have a paper copy and, unlike FRBR, there does
not appear to be a digital manifestation, so I'm not in a position to
confirm the genesis. Perhaps those with access can draw on its guidance
for clarification in this
There is no year for RDA development.
The best information is perhaps found on the JSC website under its
Historic Documents section:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs.html for efforts leading up to the review of
RDA drafts, and the Working Documents section:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/working1.html for
This is what happens when we continue to coopt a communication standard
developed to print cards for use as a vehicle to convey data in electronic
interfaces. Nearly every quirk in MARC can be traced back to its foundation as
a card printing mechanism (and the lack of programming
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
More to the point, I think, would have been a recommendation that work
on RDA cease until a coding system was designed, and ILS development
took place, which could accommodate the implementation of FRBR and
FRAD.
I think RDA implementation should be delayed at least until
The work involved in compiling the constituency responses to the drafts
was COLOSSAL. The stated deadlines were there for good reason.
In the U.S., the approximately 50 members of CC:DA were providing raw
input from their personal and subconstituency perspectives, to which was
added comments
I would add, for those with email management software that affords the ability
to create folders, it is HIGHLY beneficial to create a folder for holding such
welcome messages. This allows them to be segregated and saved for convenient
future access.
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer
And a hearty Amen! to that sentiment. (Although I now realize that its
necessary reliance on position in various Areas in order to resolve ambiquity
is anathema to metadataists.)
John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623
Ed is correct, but in which case, there needs to be corresponding rules
addressing summarization of content at the expression level in Ch.6 of
RDA for identifying Works and Expressions. On cursory review of Ch.6
however, it appears that there are multiple expression attributes
described in FRBR
This is brilliant analysis of the situation. The JSC and the RDA
testers in the U.S. should give it their strongest consideration. Karen
has articulated, using general E-R model principles, the underlying
reason for what many of us have intuitively felt -- that contents notes
are not well
Great drawings!
You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an
RDA context. This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think
the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between
works. Formally, placement there does conform to the FRBR model,
code.
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308
518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu
-Original Message-
From: Karen Coyle
Quoting Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu:
You have a question in the first segment about recording contents
If I understand things correctly, Dan's example is actually an RDF
triple serving the Work 'Moby Dick'. To address the Manifestation
issues raised by Mac, one might have:
URI(Particular Manifestation of Moby Dick) -- URI(has Statement of
Responsibility/is the Statement of Responsibility for) --
I am but a novice with the semantic web concepts. My sense is that a
URI would most effectively work in a web context -- as additional
triples are incorporated into the description, then the record is
seamlessly updated whenever it is generated. Web-connectivity is a very
real issue as Mac
But such instances where the WEMI for the library's copy collapse to a
single thing, then the library catalog should similarly concatenate
the record display to show it as the single item held. This is an
implementation and display issue, not a FRBR or record issue. (And I am
aware of the
Daniel CannCasciato wrote:
snip
Karen Coyle wrote in part:
all of the needs are user needs . . .
Brava!
/snip
Jim Weinheimer replied:
Pardons, but this is not correct. If we are to manage the collection
(whatever the collection happens to be), we will need tools, and some
of these tools will
Karen,
I'm not going to disagree with you, but I will confess some confusion
about what you are saying, since my impression of one of the purposes of
RDA was to extract it as a content-only standard from the muddle in
AACR2 which itself inherits the mixed content/carrier/display framework
of
If I recall the discussions, the original thought of coding 'r' for RDA
in the LDR/18 exposed the Anglo-centricity of the LDR/18 value 'a' for
AACR2, when all of the other national cataloging codes were relegated to
040 $e. Also working from memory, RDA records that are not ISBD
punctuated will
These granularity issues are not new. The granularity of MARC does not
match the granularity of AACR2/ISBD.
The most glaring case of MARC being insufficiently granular is the well
known case of the 245$b being required to code for the parallel title
(AACR2 1.1D), other title information (AACR2
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on
behalf of Weinheimer Jim
Perhaps I am completely off base, but I do not believe I am talking about
relationships here, I am talking about some new types of entities that do not
seem to fit the WEMI theoretical
I believe this is a fake:
http://www.bauer-power.net/2007/12/nigerians-are-at-it-again-this-time.html
Marjorie should be at the JSC meeting in Chicago, not a fictitious AIDS
conference in Malaysia.
John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
One might conjecture that with the recent server migration for this list that
the list profile or list filters were not transferred with entire success
during the process. I would imagine that Nathalie is in conversation with the
good people at LAC in order to resolve the situation.
John
For those attending the ALA MidWinter meeting in Denver, the CC:DA meetings are:
Saturday, January 24, 1:30-5:30 p.m., Marriott Colorado Ballroom F
Monday, January 29, 8:00 a.m.-noon, Marriott Colorado Ballroom F
Note that a tentatively scheduled Friday afternoon meeting has been cancelled.
...@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca] On Behalf Of Myers, John F.
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:57 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] CC:DA meetings at ALA Midwinter
For those attending the ALA MidWinter meeting in Denver, the CC:DA meetings are:
Saturday, January 24, 1:30-5:30 p.m., Marriott
Greetings, and apologies for cross posting and to non-U.S. subscribers.
Please forward to appropriate and interested parties and lists.
As recently announced by the Joint Steering Committee for the
Development of RDA (JSC), the complete draft of RDA is available for
review at:
Delightful reading!
I see though that the history of AACR was populated by early missteps,
issues with the efforts of a least one of the editors, concern regarding
the financial implications of implementation, resistance to a new
underlying bibliographic framework, and resistance generally to the
The issue is that we hide our catalog records in our catalogs. While the
public face of those catalogs is a WebOPAC, this is only an html based
interface to the catalog data, an interface that is inherently self contained.
The actual records are not searchable via a search originating on the
Forgive this simple country cataloger (well, ok, I presently happen to
chair CC:DA as well), but I've looked at the FRBR user tasks. To my
perception they are but a further generalization and level of
abstraction of Cutter's Objects, adapted to an information universe
where there are multiple
-Original Message-
Karen Coyle wrote:
Actually my big concern is that the entity Person may make sense as a
subject but we don't have persons as creators, only personal names. That
name may be a pseudonym used by two actual human beings, or there could
be many names associated with one
-Original Message-
Karen Coyle wrote:
And your definition of person will determine what these relevant data
elements are, and what you can do with this data. If you your persons
are bibliographic entities then they can't interact with data about
real persons (LDAP databases, the
I suspect that the addition of intellectual content in the form of music
to create Fast food nation the symphony would render it a new, though
related, work - W2
The realization of W2 by Orchestra X would be an expression
(contribution of performance aspects) - E1
The realization of W2 by
In my post below I offered a development of a FRBR hierarchy that of
course is simplistic and hypothetical. This lovely world of ours
refuses however to be confined to the little boxes we create for it and
could offer the following scenarios:
Anachronistic issues aside, our symphony is
Excellent point! I just ran across this kind of thing the other day. I
was nosing around in Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO) to
verify which edition (if I may be forgiven for outmoded terminology) of
a title we had, since ours was lacking the title page and the last
gathering. In
An event is a Group 3 entity. But I suspect that the original poster is
using shorthand to refer to the sound recording of Karajan's direction
of the Berlin Philharmonic performing Beethoven's 9th.
In a full entity-relationship implementation it is possible (likely?)
that distinctions between
Well said Karen!! I would add the two following points:
1) Edition is a very print-centric concept and we are trying to apply
FRBR and its Group 1 entities across a broad spectrum of bibliographic
resources, like music and moving images, to which edition is not
appropriate terminology.
A casual reading of the charge leads me to believe that the ALCTS
Implementation TF is not intent on developing a document that would
serve as a U.S. application profile for RDA. Their role appears to be
more along the line of facilitating communication, education, and
training efforts among the
The problem with answering Karen's question under the current guidelines
is that there is no coding value for transsexual. And if one were to
code for such, then the complexity of adequate coding comes into play.
Is a general transsexual code sufficient, or is there a need for
specific FTM and
I'm not entirely certain Karen's statements are correct, although I'm
not quite willing to label them False. As her second question
highlights, our current Uniform Title constructions encompass the FRBR
concepts of both Work and Expression -- 'Le petit prince' is the Work
title; 'Le petit
I'm several posts behind, catching up on this thread after a
day-and-a-half away from the office.
I agree with Kevin Randall. The transition from the AACR2 rules that
deal with headings to the RDA rules that deal with attributes of a named
entity has not quite been successful. That is not
I remember early in my library career and while still in my public
service days, my shock at learning of a high school aged patron looking
up George Washington in the G volume of the encyclopedia. But then my
paper address book had entries formatted directly, even if they were
filed under last
As someone who has witnessed a fair number of publishers' quirks over a
modest number of years, I would have to agree with Mike's assessment.
I'm confident I'm not the only one to see a supposedly unique ISBN
recycled, among other things. Publishers' efforts at in-house CIP are
laughable not
-Original Message-
Mac wrote:
Any suggested rewordings?
-
I'm a little hesitant to write RIs for a cataloging code that is yet to
be published and is in a state of flux. I am equally aware that nothing
in this correspondence will directly influence RDA or any
[This discussion is predicated on the December 2005 draft of RDA. I
know there have been some decisions and changes made in the intervening
years, but tracking them down is a little thorny, so I'm sticking with
the draft I have and knowledge that place of publication is to be an
optional element
A follow on thought regarding the recently offered RI for place of
publication. (Again subject to the limitation of working from the
December 2005 draft.)
More appropriate to an RI is the ongoing furor over the optional nature
of recording place of publication. Most are not aware that place
Maybe our cataloging should include a hot link from our standard
abbreviations to the translation/definition in the appropriate
Wikiwhatever? Or embed such links as non-literal value surrogates?
Irreverently yours (and ducking),
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union
-Original Message-
Quoting me:
Records created by/for [Agency X/Nation X libraries] will not treat
this element as optional.
J. McRee Elrod responded:
Excellent! There remains the question of which place(s) to
transcribe, whether to supply jurisdiction if lacking, and what to do
with
I can provide the following single datapoint. We have about 350k OCLC records
in our database. Of these, about 250k have DLC coding somewhere in the 040
tag, leaving 100k of non-DLC member copy -- that is, over 70% of records from
LC.
I am not certain that a raw comparison of numbers of
I will raise counterpoint that I have always disliked the format
structure of AACR. Particularly annoying have been the plethora of
format-specific rules that effectively say, Record information about
[insert element] as instructed in 1.[#.X]. This increasingly has become
a source of
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
That RDA does not make transcription or supplying of statement of
responsibility or place of publication mandatory, would greatly hamper
identification and selection of resources on the part of our clients.
--
I was equally ready to get on
I am beginning to suspect that the difficulties arising for the
treatment of the conjunction preceding an alternative title may be why
ISBD is formulated to include alternative titles in the title proper. I
am not against the JSC's decision to create the new element for the
alternative title.
99 matches
Mail list logo
