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
I'd like to jump off this discussion ever so slightly ask what
relationship designator one would use for a 110 corporate agency that is
charged with issuing a quarterly report. I'm still thinking about these
GAO reports in which the report is this agency's findings on a specified
topic; I feel
Hi all,
Given that RDA seems to have a hierarchy for publication, etc.,
information--take publication first, distribution if that is absent, and
manufacture if distribution is also not present--what do we do if none of
these are present and nothing can be supplied from outside the resource? It
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,
If it’s published, and there is no information at all then this is all that can
be recorded in RDA for the subelements of the Publisher statement:
Publication Statement:
[place of publication not identified] : [publisher not identified], [date of
publication not identified]
The only case, I
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
Yeah There's no I in RDA, guys
!!
Unhelpfully (but hoping to be excused because it's Friday),
John
John Wagstaff
Head, Music Performing Arts Library
Interim Head, Literatures and Languages Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel.
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
Good answer, Cindy. I think the general case is that people tend to want only
the information they want-nothing more, nothing less. And for each person,
that specific information is going to be different.
But Mac's comment gets at the most pervasive misunderstanding of FRBR, a
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
