Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 03.12.2013 17:38, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller: but the Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften would be an example of a faculty. It's definitely a faculty, but does it fit the text of the instruction: the granting institution or faculty? I had never thought about this before, but now that I do I think that it's always the university which grants the degree, and not the faculty. I just checked my own degree certificate and it says (I translate, as not everybody's command of German is as good as John's): The Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, represented by the Dean of the Philosophical Faculty 1, ... , hereby grants the degree of Master of Arts I also looked up some federal university laws, which gave me the same impression. [to the situation in Germany] Scientific degrees are granted by the university (for medical, judical and other professions there additionally or alternatively exist state-recognized exams (Staatsexamen)). However the procedure is governed by the Promotionsordnung as part of the Pruefungsordnung: These regulations are set up by the faculty (Fakultaet or Fachbereich) and have to be approved by the state ministry specifically responsible for higher education. And in the many recent cases where deprivation(?) of the doctoral degree was executed, the faculties were exercising the formal procedure (notwithstanding parallel investigations with respect to scientific misconduct performed or directed by the university itself). Historically doctorates could only be acquired on (full) universities, and these are qualified by possessing the full bouquet of faculties (theology, philosophy, medicine, law and mathematics). Therefore I doubt that even in former times a single faculty ever was degree-/granting/. The different faculties of a university might have differences in reputation, but usually the faculty should be derivable from the subject. I can imagine cases where precise knowledge of the faculty would give valuable hints for assessing the work, e.g. when a thesis with an impressive title soaking of physics was actually presented to the law faculty... viele Gruesse Thomas Berger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iJwEAQECAAYFAlKeVBkACgkQYhMlmJ6W47OI0gP/bpZhmkuVjNBVUOEJb1dX7ZY1 0VPVJqButAFn/jWxFcFFgVIm43+STSihcMpfroEjI2htX/+1slwuQFVoq7TRlJGq aj4W/uFwagOGyjiqNl37/qHYl/j0p/N+/EqLFhXEiF+PVJ1EzVuPXzKM1nD+iP9m QbWb+cpBFEoxck8IGFw= =I2fx -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
will most certainly associate them with the persons, whatever the law may say. I think there is a deep gap in understanding titles of nobility between anglo-american cataloguers and cataloguers mainly concerned with phenomena in the former HRE: Duke of York is a title of nobility, and duke alone is just an indication of the rank. Thus Graf von Schack is a title of nobility for the acting count of Schack, however - and there the differences start - von Schack is already indication of nobility for the whole family (there is no family of York in Britain, the current bearer of the title has Windsor as his house name and passing of the title is governed not by inheritance but by dynastical evolution) and furthermore Graf von Schack may also be the title of the noble family as a whole (in a certain interval of time: rulers could promote a distinct person, or promote this person hereditarily or they could promote the whole family!). To make further differences after the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss many ruling families lost their sovereignity but not their nobility (which may have turned von Schack or the like the first time into also a family name), and after 1918 all until then reigning families also lost all of their legal privileges and these families had to select civil last names. In Germany (but not in Austria) they were allowed to turn their title of nobility (for the family) into last names, thus Graf von Schack for a person lived after 1918 is a last name, still indicating nobility (not former nobility, since nobility itself has not been abolished in 1918, just turned into a kind of folklore). Or von Schack is the last name (still indicating nobility) and Graf only acts as an epitethon used by a certain person: You /can never/ be completely sure and the legal truth and the name mostly used by the person might differ. But you cannot even be sure wether Graf von Schack is the /name/ the person uses, it might also be that the person himself considers it as his name von Schack in combination with his (former, traditional, ...) rank Graf... If we're going to add dates in 100, it now seems logical to me to put the titles of nobility there as well. it is logical for Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven (1925-2013), but for Adolf Graf von Schack (Adolf von Schack, Graf von Schack? or Adolf Graf von Schack, Graf von Schack??) already demands some research: NDB states at least that the rank Graf (of prussian nobility) was acquired in 1876 but this does not suffice to determine whether Graf then became part of the family name or not... viele Gruesse Thomas Berger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iJwEAQECAAYFAlJgDpIACgkQYhMlmJ6W47NlvQP+OH0cvKnUtrfmxVWDFFpPdDOZ N8P9zIDMQ+nTaBw8a750AFo4aHy4f3qfyfgAmytcEUcwZlfl8JTOIBB2qyz5r1D6 pwd3+EN63WdYxZb+rkM4vhvKWKlxX4HJnBt1yCiVjlwpIYH9/CV3xyuNXnglIx2D 1xJU77dT10Lh6gqjAQs= =OXi3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 17.10.2013 00:02, schrieb Charles Croissant: The instruction at 9.4.1.3 is an exact parallel to the instruction at 9.3.1.3, so I think you can apply the same line of reasoning in both instances. There will be times when we record a person's dates or title as a separate data element, times when we record dates or titles as parts of access points, and times when we do both. If I recall correctly, RDA instructs us to determine the name of the person and several kinds of other data. From this we have to assemble the preferred access point according to syntactic rules which are chosen to yield results as far as possible identical to headings constructed under AACR2. You then have the /choice/ to additionally record the data collected in the process (or some of it) as such. While headings / access points coded in MARC are somewhat phrased by subfield delimiters, the amount of markup is not sufficient to preserve the information gathered as /data/. If this information shall be recorded as data (I don't think RDA has a stance with respect to this, but trashing immediately any information just laboriously gathered seems such a waste) it has to find a different place in the data format, preferably in an authority record. Even the most data-like X00$d in my opinion does not qualify as data: Usually exact birth and death dates can be determined but months and days enter subfield $d only in cases where further disambiguation is needed... An example of Heidrun's first case, that is, of recording someone's title as a separate data element, would be including someone's title as one of the elements in the person's authority record, even though it is not needed as part of the person's access point, because having information about the title contributes to an exact identification of the person. Then there are a specific set of situations where we are asked to make a person's title part of his or her access point, and those situations are defined in 9.19.1.2. Completely agreed. But above you mentionend cases where information would only go into access points and not also in a dedicated data element? Personally I think that it must not be any cataloging codes' business to limit my recording of data gathered on the occasion of performing professional functions. Mandating (and also excluding) elements to be accounted for when constructing access points makes much sense, but naming elements or circumstances where these elements may not be recorded as data would be a completely different business. Consider our practice with dates-- now that we have the 046 field, there are many instances where a person's dates are being recorded in a separate element, even though they are not used in the access point, and just as many instances where someone's dates are being recorded both in separate elements _and_ as part of their access point. There are also instances where a person's dates have been recorded in an access point, but haven't (yet) been recorded as separate elements. Maybe titles are different in the following respect: They sometimes happen to be already part of the /name/ and therefore are incorporated into the access point anyway. RDA instructs us now to determine the exact title as such (and in many cases incorporate it into the access point a second time). There is not much harm in this, since most often the title as occurring in the name deviates significantly from the title as such. viele Gruesse Thomas Berger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iJwEAQECAAYFAlJfItMACgkQYhMlmJ6W47OiQgP/fHpVjsEN4YMweE8plmDT5+fH zoQ8pkE5V6mxBPZXGBpGu6+u56BZ6fDs4y76pBTR2AbB5VYulsbARW/CcV1L0ozt Ko833RaGwlCPOdT/OXAwrC0Qfsq7igOE9kxOdo2bGe2p2vK80eLGuTHlLgr3ybHN wRMIAEbAAueV51mgEp0= =7FiQ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 05.08.2013 17:56, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller: --- 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS IN BERLIN 2011 LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, but still in capitals] edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing -- According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing That would be Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians. Edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing by virtue of RAK §140,2 (assuming that the conference induced and maybe issued the work but did not edit it). viele Gruesse Thomas Berger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iJwEAQECAAYFAlH/zd4ACgkQYhMlmJ6W47PU4QP+Ndq8QU0I5GTf/VZkJY49ylg7 /gqhLGr8agDoMCMehY10+PnLnHYJKUnznCpFX24f4WhbgY7LY6Y56FQC/Hgy84KP 6qa5ky8gqJRqC4l+Qh2NCdZcQ28Rjn7BmYy9NC4nJvStiyofbJ8IB44Ay/LOLix8 wY6Eume5Pn7ERraLxUc= =57Mt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
