I'd like to add my thanks for sharing this huge amount of work with the
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:
source of information:
Historic railway timetables of northern Essex
Colchester, Braintree, Walton, Frinton, Clacton, Tiptree, Maldon &
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
RDA 22.214.171.124 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 126.96.36.199?
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?
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
On 12.12.2013 15:28, Bernadette O'Reilly wrote:
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
Catalogue Support Librarian
Osney One Building
Oxford OX2 0EW.
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: