And this is where you need justification--for the added entries. I also have seen records, that have added entries and I say, "Where did that come from?'' When you note "where that came from," you are give information to the patron--TOO.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Michael Borries < michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu> wrote: > I can see that an argument can be made for using the relationship > designator as the justification for the added entry. One problem in the > past has been that relationship designators have been more unstable (likely > to disappear) than information in the body of the description. Also, there > are those cases when there is no suitable relationship designator.**** > > ** ** > > I don’t think most patron give any of this a thought. But in my career I > have come across a handful of added entries (most or all of them corporate) > that simply made no sense, and there was no justification anywhere in the > record. Since I didn’t have the piece in hand, I decided not remove these > entries, but it’s quite possible that I left in a false hit. Requiring > justification of some sort makes this situation less likely (although I > would agree that even now it is a rarity).**** > > ** ** > > Michael S. Borries**** > > Cataloger, City University of New York**** > > 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor**** > > New York, NY 10010**** > > Phone: (646) 312-1687**** > > Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Goldfarb, Kathie > *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 9:22 AM > > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points**** > > ** ** > > Very interesting. I have been in favor of continuing to document why a > person has an added entry, but I can see, if there is a relationship > designator, that those notes could become unnecessary. **** > > ** ** > > In the past, sometimes those notes were needed due to the ‘rule of three’ > which prohibited listing those other authors/editors listed on the title > page, when the cataloger felt the added entry would be useful to the patron. > **** > > ** ** > > kathie**** > > ** ** > > Kathleen Goldfarb**** > > Technical Services Librarian**** > > College of the Mainland**** > > Texas City, TX 77539**** > > 409 933 8202**** > > ** ** > > P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA <RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] *On > Behalf Of *Meehan, Thomas > *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 3:12 AM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points**** > > ** ** > > Is anyone aware of any research into whether patrons want the > justification? E.g., once a cataloguer has put “Smith, John, editor” how > much do most patrons want or need to see “edited by John Smith” in a note. > At the moment I am all in favour of justifying information, especially when > an added entry is hanging otherwise mysteriously without a relationship > designator. Perhaps relationship designators will make us question what is > actually informative to the patron.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks,**** > > > Tom**** > > ** ** > > ---**** > > ** ** > > Thomas Meehan**** > > Head of Current Cataloguing**** > > Library Services**** > > University College London**** > > Gower Street**** > > London WC1E 6BT**** > > ** ** > > t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA <RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] *On > Behalf Of *Gene Fieg > *Sent:* 07 June 2013 17:12 > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points**** > > ** ** > > And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For > instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, > but there is no note to that effect. **** > > Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English.**** > > What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification > that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, "Look at all that > I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves." Will the > cataloging be *fully* informative to the patron as to what the book/item > is???**** > > **** > > That is the question. It is all about communication.**** > > ** ** > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk < > dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca> wrote:**** > > Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the > non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators > are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. > > Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with > structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow > searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards > structured notes since it involves no authority work.**** > > > > > -- **** > > Gene Fieg > Cataloger/Serials Librarian > Claremont School of Theology > gf...@cst.edu**** > > **** > > Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not > represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information > or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that > of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School > of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a > courtesy for information only.**** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
