2013 08:37:18 -0500
From: Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional
collective
/\
/\ //\\
/\//\\///\\\/\
//\\ ///\ /\ //\\
/\ / ^ \/^ ^/^ ^ ^ \/^ \/ ^ \
/ ^\/\ / ^ / ^/ ^ ^ ^ ^\ ^/ ^^ \
/^ \
Nice. I enjoy the views, but I've never been tempted to live among them.
But I have always admired you mountain dwellers.
Gaye D'Agata
*“I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done
something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves
a little
Jamie,
Two more questions about the forthcoming transfer of RDA-L:
1. Will the URLs for mails in the present archive still be working?
For example, will
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg11767.html
still retrieve your announcement of 18 December? I've sometimes
the CCTs for our local records.
Adolfo
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:45 PM
To:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA
Am 20.12.2013 13:37, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
I think the interesting point to note is that not everything which
consists of several works by the same person is in fact a compilation
of works. Rather, in the case of...
This is the sort of casuistry we've never envied AACR users for.
We are talking about the level of the work here.
The title of the manifestation is, of course, always recorded in the
respective manifestation element.
Heidrun
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Am 20.12.2013 13:37, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
I think the interesting point to note is that not
Aren't conventional collective titles really Form/Genre headings? (Poems.
Selections, vs. Essays Selections, vs. Works Selections)
Would they not serve their function less confusingly if we treated them
that way?
FWIW, my institution has been removed CCTs from LC records ever since the
Am 20.12.2013 14:32, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
We are talking about the level of the work here.
The title of the manifestation is, of course, always recorded in the
respective manifestation element.
But you know that we had non of that casuistry in our rules?
And for reasons that had been
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
But you know that we had non of that casuistry in our rules?
And for reasons that had been discussed thoroughly for quite some time.
Did we or our users suffer from that or were they pestering us
for qualified contentional collective titles?
Isn't it just the very
difficult was suddenly very
simple. That is why I suggested something new: the word cloud where
those titles become obvious.
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2013/12/re-rda-l-collective-cities-that-is.html
So the titles that are pretty much useless now *could* turn out to be
useful (at least I think so
James Weinheimer wrote:
On 12/20/2013 2:49 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
snip
Adger Williams wrote:
Aren't conventional collective titles really Form/Genre headings?
(Poems. Selections, vs. Essays Selections, vs. Works Selections)
Would they not serve their function less confusingly if
On 12/20/2013 4:15 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
snip
Are you really sure they can? My feeling is that up to now, both aims
have been fulfilled only partly. Maybe this is what makes it so
unsatisfactory.
/snip
I honestly don't think that is the real problem. For the public, the
collective
James,
Before making our records even more complicated (and committing more
and more ever-disappearing resources) it would make sense to find out
if collective uniform titles are/could be useful to the public and if
not, why not, and then continue from there. Otherwise, we are all
working on
On 12/20/2013 5:13 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
snip
Thanks, I wasn't aware of this LCRI (I'm afraid there's still a lot I
don't know about Anglo-American cataloging). Indeed this sounds rather
complicated and a lot of effort. Also, I'm not sure I've really
understood its consequences:
Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 4:37 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective
titles
Adolfo,
I've read up
Adolfo,
My understanding of FRBR is that regardless of independent existence prior to its
appearance, each poem, short story, song, etc., is considered a work in and of itself
regardless of whether their creator considered them such. Since a compilation
is simply defined as a gathering of
Dec 2013 08:37:18 -0500
From: Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective
titles
Thanks Di
From: Diane Hillmann [mailto:d...@cornell.edu]
Sent: 18 December 2013 07:40 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] About the coming transfer of RDA-L
Jamie:
Just a clarification on one statement in your message:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:14 PM, James Hennelly
for our local records.
Adolfo
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more
: Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:19 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Identifying a person of religious vocation
Thank you all for a very enlightening discussion of all the permutations of
this problem. I will incorporate your suggestions into what I hope will be a
useful
-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective
titles
Adam,
These examples all seem to follow LC's interpretation of the first sentence
of RDA 6.2.2.10, i.e. none of these collections was treated as being known
under its own
Is it possible that she might be Siostra Maria Goretti Nowak?
http://gazetacz.com.pl/artykul.php?idm=432id=9957
It's hard to be certain, but this might be the same person as in this
picture:
http://martel-ksiazki.pl/image/cache/Ciasta_i_ciasteczka-500x500.jpg
Regards
Richard
On 16/12/2013 21.09, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
Adam Schiff wrote:
LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work
does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g.
Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a
conventional collective
James,
All of these careful arrangements *completely disintegrated* when they
were placed into the computer catalog. Since computers are rather
mindless, the uniform title Works is now placed alphabetically under
the author's name (W) and as a consequence, people are supposed to
*actively
On 17/12/2013 14.07, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
snip
But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and
functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and
that people would appreciate it, but that would take complete
reconsideration from the user's point of
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:55 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
I confess to having been part of the writing of the NACO Module 6 training
materials, but the more
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary Hough
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:03 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
While there is a theoretical sense in which an author can write only one
complete works, in actual practice
been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary Hough
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:03 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
Hi Richard,
I don't know how they do it in other countries, but here in the U.S., the
person takes on a saint's name as their FIRST name. Whether the entire name is
taken is dependent on how well known the saint is or if their order has others
in the same monastery or priory who have taken
Mac,
Yes, I was only talking about collective titles as a subtype of the
former uniform titles.
It seems RDA calls this a conventional collective title. The glossary
gives as the definition: A title used as the preferred title for a
compilation containing two or more works by one person,
Heidrun quoted RDA:
It seems RDA calls this a conventional collective title. The glossary
gives as the definition: A title used as the preferred title for a
compilation containing two or more works by one person, family, or
corporate body, or two or more parts of a work (e.g., Works, Poems,
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
no2013093410 Adémar, $c de Chabannes, $d 988-1034. $t Works. $k
-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: December-17-13 4:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Collective cities
Heidrun quoted RDA
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Charles Croissant
Sent: 17 December 2013 20:03
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Identifying a person of religious vocation
Richard,
since you are dealing with a person in religion who may wind up being
Heidrun posted:
I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.
Can't comment on the theory,
A few comments on this very interesting thread.
In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always
sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this
ambiguity. The problem affects not only conventional collective titles,
but potentially also any work
and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have
different contents. The PCC NACO
, Wilson, Pete wrote:
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:44:25 +
From: Wilson, Pete pete.wil...@vanderbilt.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
Adam--Can
16.12.2013 23:39, John Hostage:
We need to be able to enter data in MARC fields without punctuation
and let the punctuation be generated as necessary on output. The
punctuation could even differ in different contexts. (We can dream,
can't we?)
This dream has long since been reality in
I'd like to add my thanks for sharing this huge amount of work with the
community.
After having started on the Bodleian's documents, I'm most favourably
impressed. These materials are very thorough with lots of helpful
detail, easy to understand, and contain very good explanations even for
Of Meehan, Thomas
Sent: 13 December 2013 08:43
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Bodleian/OLIS RDA materials
Bernadette,
Thank you for sharing all this! It is very much appreciated. Shared open
documentation has been indispensable to us so far in looking at RDA
Patricia Fogler posted:
holdings for 2009-2012, when it went to web-only
I suggest a closed record (end date in 008, 264$c's, and 362). I
would have a 264 1 for the first publisher, and 264 31 for the
second. I would have a 785 pointing to the electronic continuation.
Thus I am needing an
I have to say that I was going with creator myself after reading a few
RDA-list comments. But putting it out locally to our bibliographers, it's
been voted down in favor of author. So I guess it's going to vary from
one library to another. As much of RDA appears to be doing.
//SIGNED//
of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:04 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
I have to say that I was going with creator myself
Mac,
Many thanks to yourself and your grandson!
My interpretation is that the power of actually granting the degree
resides with the university only. But obviously the faculty must tell
the representative of the university (the chancellor) who is to be
decorated in this way. I think this is
On 12/7/2013 9:38 PM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
No, the FRBR model uses the language of entity-relationship models.
But that model is being used to illustrate the relationships of the
elements. It's a language for understanding the data. But the model
isn't talking at all about the
On 12/7/2013 6:24 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
How bibliographic record exchange would work when full manifestation
records no longer exist, and collections have differing manifestations
of works, I've not seen discussed.
/snip
Yes, I have not seen this issue discussed either. Just as
Heidrun said:
I know that the second case was treated differently under AACR2. You
wouldn't give a dissertation note (MARC 502), but a general note (MARC
500) saying something like Originally presented as the author's thesis
(doctoral)
Unril/unless we have actual work records (as in
On 12/6/2013 11:12 PM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote:
To be fair, the original version of FRBR came out before (or at least
not long afterward) the huge abandonment by the public of our OPACs.
Google had barely even begun to exist when FRBR appeared. Still, there
could have
James said:
FRBR proposes to take out data that is now in the manifestation
record and put certain parts of it into a work instance, while
other data will go into an expression instance.
Bibframe has work and instance data, no expression category. What
are different expressions in FRBR/WEMI
James Weinheimer wrote:
FRBR proposes to take out data that is now in the
manifestation record and put certain parts of it into a work
instance, while other data will go into an expression instance.
No. Most emphatically, NO. This is at the heart of your fundamental
misunderstanding of
James Weinheimer wrote:
Designers of relational databases want
to make their databases as efficient as they can, and one way to do that
is by eliminating as much duplication as possible. This is what FRBR
proposes.
No, the FRBR model uses the language of entity-relationship models. But that
06.12.2013 09:12, James Weinheimer:
I do believe that FRBR is the main enemy (to use your term). Why?
Because everything, including RDA and the new formats, etc. all state
explicitly that this is what they are aiming for, even though the model
has never been proven to be what people want. Why
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
I agree that author is unsatisfactory as a relationship designator for a
corporate body. I don't think it meets most users' expectations of what an
author is.
...
When we enter this sort of exhibition
When all elements are lacking, and there's no RDA provision, I suppose
you can for the time being at least, go back to AACR:
Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d.
Until no mixed record or coding is allowed, or a 264 5 should come
along.
Jack
Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Brenndorfer,
Public Library
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu
Sent: December-06-13 11:07 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement
When all elements
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
Forgot, that WAS the good old days.
Jack
Myers, John mye...@union.edu 12/6/2013 11:31 AM
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.
Patricia posted:
We're not happy with |e author either. We've been using a staggered |e
author, |e issuing agency
I agree with you that author seems strange applied to a corporate
body, and will seem strange to our patrons. I assume you are unhappy
with $eissuing body alone, since it is not
Jack Wu said:
you can for the time being at least, go back to AACR:
Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d.
AACR2 did no have n.d.. One was supposed to guess, even [19--?].
RDA provides [Place of publication not identified] etc. Our
cataloguers are instructed to never use those long uninformative
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Thus, considering that much of what FRBR promises is reality already
FRBR doesn't promise anything. It just describes what was always being done,
and shaped into a model to help us better understand what was being done.
The newer functionalities we are seeing, such
Of course Mac and others are right, there's no n.d. in AACR2, and to guess a
place and a date is better than no information and Not Identified. Still I
wonder, if I know just 1 place and 1 date, as with much legacy data, whether
they are of publication, or distribution, or just copyright will
James said:
The structure of the card catalog allowed people to do the FRBR user
tasks (where--for those who understood--people really and truly could
find/identify/select/obtain works/expressions/manifestation/items by
their authors/titles/subjects (or at least they could if the catalogers
If I want an English translation of a work, why would I want to
know about the original and other translations?
I think the operative word here is I. What if
someone else wants to know, either a researcher or a library staff member
doing collection development?
The catalog serves many purposes
-244-4070
e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Cindy Wolff
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
If I want an English
On 12/6/2013 7:12 PM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
FRBR doesn't promise anything. It just describes what was always being done,
and shaped into a model to help us better understand what was being done.
The newer functionalities we are seeing, such as the faceting in Jim's Hamlet example, are
/ Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Cindy Wolff
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
If I want an English translation of a work, why would I want to
know about the original and other
James Weinheimer wrote:
To be fair, the original version of FRBR came out before (or at least
not long afterward) the huge abandonment by the public of our OPACs.
Google had barely even begun to exist when FRBR appeared. Still, there
could have been a chapter on the newest developments back
Kevin said:
FRBR is *not* about user displays. At all.
Nor is RDA about display. But isn't user display the end result of
what we do, and what must concern us? What's the point if our efforts
don't result in intelligible displays?
It would seem to me the basic functional requirement of
04.12.2013 21:07, Laurence S. Creider:
If I were a business or business group thinking about adopting a new
standard and had a choice between the costs of RDA and a community
standard that was largely open, I probably would not choose RDA even if it
were markedly superior to the other
On 12/5/2013 9:03 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
04.12.2013 21:07, Laurence S. Creider:
I think that the most we can hope for is for other content standards
that
we can make compatible to RDA so that data can be exchanged in the other
format.
We have to realize that schema.org,
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:08 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 240 uniform title
Patricia,
If the combination of author + title is identical to another work
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:54 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging
John Hostage wrote:
I think what he meant was, what use is it to have access to the PSs if
you can't
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:42 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging
I
, December 04, 2013 4:13 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging
Is this Kindle version updated? That may be what is meant by less than
full range of content as the subscription product. If so, it would be
equivalent in content to the print
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Breeding, Zora
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:13 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging
Is this Kindle version updated? That may be what is meant by less than full
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of John Hostage
[host...@law.harvard.edu]
Sent: 02 December 2013 22:04
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
RDA appendix I.2.2 has
John,
I think the RDA instruction was probably worded that way to allow freedom to
record whatever feels most useful and to take into account varying amounts of
information available. In most cases it's enough to record the university
name, but some libraries feel very particular about
Mac,
Another of those ambiguous English words. It can mean the teaching
staff of an educational institution. But in this context, it means a
subunit of a university which grants degrees. In other words, the
body which granted the degree should be in 502. $b.
(...)
The institution in
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote:
The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated
under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar
with this European concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation
I don't have
Since habilitation is not an Anglo-American institution, I would be surprised
indeed if RDA discusses it. (Just to confirm--searching the Toolkit for
habilitation or any of its variants returns no hits.) So I think this is an
area where the (Continental) European cataloging community will have
Heidrun asked:
Have you got a good example for such a school/faculty which actually
grants its own degrees ...
When next in my doctor's office, I will check his degree on the wall.
We will note and trace (500/710) the department, and faculty adviser
(500/700$epraeses), if the client wishes,
Patricia,
If the combination of author + title is identical to another work then a 240
would be needed to differentiate this work from others. Typically only a
year is used, not year month date. You only break the conflict when there
already is one, not when you expect/suspect there will be
Ben,
You're right. We'll try and work something out. One idea which has
already come up is defining an additional element which would express
the character of a thesis instead of a specific degree.
But isn't it amazing how these cultural differences pop up at the most
unexpected places. I
] On Behalf Of Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:39
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
John,
I think the RDA instruction was probably worded that way to allow freedom
to record whatever feels most useful and to take into account
Really? Has anyone out there in the industry even noticed? What
*might* get noticed is a change in communication formats, but not in
rules.
This is what I have been thinking about for a
while as I read these discussions:
What if we gave a standard and
nobody came, but some other powerful,
-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?
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Neither an issuing body nor a host institution is a creator in RDA, so using
those relationship designators in 110 fields is not correct. Works are not
named by combining the authorized access point for issuing
Finnerty, Ryan rfinne...@ucsd.edu wrote:
What if you have an entity that has multiple roles, one at the creator
level and the other at another level (e.g. author and publisher)?
Would it be acceptable to use relationship designator for both roles in a
1XX, like this:
110 2_ Geological
In article 529c5974.5010...@hdm-stuttgart.de, you wrote:
I'm not quite certain about the meaning of faculty in the element
Dissertation or Thesis Information.
Another of those ambiguous English words. It can mean the teaching
staff of an educational institution. But in this context, it means
The corporate body is the creator of the work. The relationship designator would either be
author or if you preferred to use the element name (see the PCC guidelines on
relationship designators), creator.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:23:35 -0800
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship
Audrey Williams asked:
if a print edition of an E-book is already in the database, is it better to
add a link to the E-book on the bibliographical record of the print
expression or add a new bibliographical record ...
Add a new record. The fixed fields would differ, as would the 33X media
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
Pete Wilson asked:
Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an exhibition=
n catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum=
. The museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the ar=
t involved. What is the appropriate
with it.
Pete
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L
Pete Wilson said:
This might not be as important if PCC policy weren't to use
relationship designators for all creators.
If you don't like any of the more exact terms, your best option would
seem to be to use $ecreator. It's not in one of the lists, but
we've been told in the absence of an
Judy,
Thanks for this. It is very helpful. I am going to be (even) late(r)
with the outstanding EURIG responses, as I simply have not had time to
look at them since last week. I don't think this should hold up the
two that have already been agreed.
Alan
From: Resource Description
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
1 - 100 of 7407 matches
Mail list logo
