Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: Why would one wish to do that? Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a rock. All we need is 264 2 for the seller of the rock. Like manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring objects are not published, and should have the appropriate 264 indicator for manufacturer and distributor. Don't confuse RDA's production statement, which refers to man-made stuff, with what might be similar statements in another universe for naturally occurring objects. RDA woefully lacks any direction on telling us to forego 260/264-like statements for these objects--if that's the intent of the standard. Presumption through silence isn't good guidance. No they are not. Much of RDA is very unclear, and not in accord with reality. I disagree. Some of it is unclear. I have the same problems with parts of AACR2. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
M. E. m.k.e.m...@gmail.com wrote: Don't confuse RDA's production statement, which refers to man-made stuff, with what might be similar statements in another universe for naturally occurring objects. Thinking this over, I should qualify that the production statement would also apply to natural objects that are made or converted into something else by hand, such as a display--AACR2's resource as communication that I brought up in a related thread on OLAC-L. Again, a case of RDA not be more clear on how to handle such things which can be important parts of some collections. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
Bernhard said:
RDA, to my knowledge, doesn't define the term, although why not?
I mean, in the light of RDA's ambitions...
In light of RDA's ambitions to be used outside the bibliographic
world, there certainly needs to be better provisions for objects.
Museums for example could use 264 0 for the artist who carved a
statue, and should be able to use 264 3 for the manufacturer of the
period telephone in its collection. Museums have far more objects
than books, and RDA is very book centric, particularly in not
recognizing that objects may be manufactured or distributed, but are
not published in the public's understanding of that word.
When/if RDA is coded in Bibframe, bf: tags need to be specific for
producer, publisher, distributor, and manufacturer.
We are not in Alice's Wonderland, in which words may mean whatever we
want them to mean. We are part of a larger culture in which words
have meanings, including publisher and published.
I suspect nobody on the JSC deals with the sorts of things which cross
Julie Moore's desk daily.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
Adam responded to my statement:
RDA as now written does not require a not identified publisher
statement (264 1) when recording producer (264 0)
That is because it would be contrary to the definitions, Mac.
Production in RDA is limited only to unpublished resources. It can't
simultaneously be published (264 _1) and unpublished (264 _0).
Exactly!! That's my point!!!
iPads and rocks are not published either. It should also be possible
to use 264 3 and 264 2 without a 264 1, just as it is for 264 0.
Resources may be manufactured or distributed without being published,
just as they may be produced without being published. We should not
stretch the meaning of publish beyond all reason.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
I think technically it is NOT possible to use 264 _2 and 264 _3 with 264 _0
in an RDA-coded record, because distribution and manufacture elements in RDA
are defined as pertaining only to published resources. This may be an area
in RDA that needs revision, but the definitions given in RDA are quite
clear.
2.9.1.1 A distribution statement is a statement identifying the place or
places of distribution, distributor or distributors, and date or dates of
distribution of a resource in a published form.
2.10.1.1 A manufacture statement is a statement identifying the place or
places of manufacture, manufacturer or manufacturers, and date or dates of
manufacture of a resource in a published form.
Manufacture statements include statements relating to the printing,
duplicating, casting, etc., of a resource in a published form.
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:01 PM
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
Adam responded to my statement:
RDA as now written does not require a not identified publisher
statement (264 1) when recording producer (264 0)
That is because it would be contrary to the definitions, Mac.
Production in RDA is limited only to unpublished resources. It can't
simultaneously be published (264 _1) and unpublished (264 _0).
Exactly!! That's my point!!!
iPads and rocks are not published either. It should also be possible
to use 264 3 and 264 2 without a 264 1, just as it is for 264 0.
Resources may be manufactured or distributed without being published,
just as they may be produced without being published. We should not
stretch the meaning of publish beyond all reason.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
Adam said:
I think technically it is NOT possible to use 264 _2 and 264 _3 with 264 _0
in an RDA-coded record
Why would one wish to do that? Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a
rock. All we need is 264 2 for the seller of the rock. Like
manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring objects are not
published, and should have the appropriate 264 indicator for
manufacturer and distributor.
distribution and manufacture elements in RDA are defined as
pertaining only to published resources.
That is simply wrong and should be ignored until changed. iPads are
manufactured and rocks distributed, even though not published. One of
the first items I ever catalogued was a set of sample minerals. The
were collected and distributed, not published.
This may be an area in RDA that needs revision
That is an understatement. Until revised, we should be truthful in
our descriptions, and not pretend that equipment manufacturers and
naturally occurring object distributors are publishers.
but the definitions given in RDA are quite clear.
No they are not. Much of RDA is very unclear, and not in accord with
reality. How many JSC members are actual cataloguers of nonbook
materials? They should add Julie Moore to their number!
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
