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 difficult and complex matters. And I simply *love* those made-up examples! As somebody who teaches cataloguing, I know that a hint of humor is indispensable.

Reading through module 1, I noticed the following three points:

p. 14:
source of information:
Historic railway timetables of northern Essex
Colchester, Braintree, Walton, Frinton, Clacton, Tiptree, Maldon & Chelmsford

The solution gives "Colchester, Braintree ..." as a quoted note in 500. The text explains: "Any contents-type information should be moved to a note." Is this a common Anglo-American practice? I must say that I would have been perfectly happy to record "Colchester, Braintree ..." as other title information.

RDA says:
"Other title information can include any phrase appearing with a title proper that is indicative of:
the character, contents, etc., of the resource
the motives for, or occasion of, its production, publication, etc."

So "contents" doesn't seem to be out of scope for other title information. Or would you see "Colchester, Braintree ..." as a case which would belong under RDA

p. 21:
source of information: Fortieth Anniversary Edition 2010
solution given: 250 __ Fortieth anniversary edition 2010.

I wouldn't have treated "2010" as part of the edition statement in this case, and this also seems to contradict what is said on p. 20 ("Date is an identifying term only if used adjectivally, e.g. "2003 version""). So perhaps this is a mistake?

p. 26:
I very much approve of the Bodleian's decision to keep "all illustrations" and "chiefly illustrations" for the time being, although strictly speaking this is not allowed under RDA 7.15. As far as I know, LC also still uses these terms, and some examples in the BL's workflows make me assume that they've kept the practice as well. Until a better solution is found, this seems like a good idea to me. Expressing the information only by means of the content type wouldn't be helpful for our users.


On 12.12.2013 15:28, Bernadette O'Reilly wrote:

Dear colleagues,

The Bodleian Libraries and Oxford Library Information System are pleased to be able to make their inhouse RDA documentation publicly available at http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/our-work/cataloguing. It includes brief transfer training materials for experienced cataloguers and comprehensive materials for training from scratch and for reference, all available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.

Because we have a very large number of cataloguers scattered over many libraries, some of whom do only small amounts of cataloguing, our documentation is designed to be fairly free-standing. We have to keep contact sessions to the minimum, and we do not expect all cataloguers to gain a detailed knowledge of FRBR or of the RDA Toolkit.

We benefited greatly from seeing other agencies' materials when we were planning our RDA implementation, and we hope that our materials may be of some use or interest to agencies who are currently planning their own implementation. Comments and corrections are very welcome (c...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk <mailto:c...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk>).

Best wishes,


Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian

Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.

c...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk <mailto:c...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk>
01865 2-77134


To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
In the body of the message:

Reply via email to