Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records
Adam It always struck me as odd that 3XX fields were added to MARC 21 because of RDA, but not named to correspond to the RDA elements they map to. Maybe it was thought that codes other than RDA might want to use them. 368 was extended to cover persons as well as corporate bodies, in order to accommodate RDA 9.6 and 9.4 http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-04.html We proposed this in parallel with 6JSC/BL/4 http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#bl-4 so that when 9.6 was widened in scope, we’d have somewhere to put the element in a MARC record. Also titles. Regards Richard From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: 28 October 2013 19:17 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records Richard, Interesting, although I find it to be a bit of a stretch to say that using terms like this in 368 $c connotes an “other designation” in the RDA sense. Although the field is defined as “Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body”, I think I’d prefer a new subfield for “other attribute” rather than “other designation” which is RDA terminology. Or else perhaps rename the subfield $c as “Other attribute” which would be more understandable to put terms like Nobel Prize winner. But the more I think about it, however, I can almost see how terms like this could even be used (in the singular) in a $c qualifier in an access point to break a conflict. I think I’ve come around (didn’t take long!) but I think we should rename 368 $c “Other attribute” or “Other attribute or designation”. Adam From: Moore, Richard mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 12:52 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records Adam Although you can’t do this: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 386$a Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 386$a Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh You can put these terms in 368: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 368 $c Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 368 $c Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh The reason we argued at MARBI (as was) that 386 should be limited to name-title authorities is that in the personal NAR, controlled vocabularies are already used in 368 and 374 to record the same kinds of thing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
John, Isn't a festschrift by definition a compilation of of works by different persons, families, or corporate bodies? As such it would fall under RDA 6.27.1.4 and the authorized access point would be the preferred title of the compilation, so no corporate main entry. Yes, but isn't that also true for the collected papers of a conference? Yet, these get main entry under the conference, according to 19.2.1.1.1 d) i) (works that report the collective activity of a conference). (At least, I believe they should, although in practice I've often seen only an added entry for the conference). So I had assumed it would also be possible that 19.2.1.1.1 a) (works of an administrative nature dealing with the following aspects of the body itself) might override a title main entry. But judging from Mac's answer and yours, this is simply not the case. This does help a lot for my understanding. Would it be fair to say that multiple authorship very strongly suggests that a resource should not be treated under 19.2.1.1.1? Then a festschrift for a corporate body or its website would usually be outside the scope of 19.2.1.1.1, and it would also fit in with Mac's assessment of a corporate brochure as a borderline case. Inspired by the discussion of RDA 11.3 in another thread, I just visited the website of the Australian National Measurment Institute and looked at their brochure, which is quite a good example of the thing I had in mind (takes some time to load, however): http://www.measurement.gov.au/Documents/NMIbrochure.pdf Here, there is no indication of who the author or authors were. It is certainly about the body, but not really about the aspects listed in 19.2.1.1.1 a). So my feeling now is that title main entry might be the safer choicer. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate body main entry
28.10.2013 20:02, J. McRee Elrod: OTOH, this sort of issue may have long since become a non-issue when it comes to searching. The main entry idea is obsolete ... The main entry concept is not obsolete (despite the name change) so long as we are Cuttering, creating subject and added entries for works, single entry bibliographies, and assisting scholars with citations and footnotes. Granted a searcher may not care whether the searched corporate body is 110 or 710; all it affects is Cutter. But Cutter is not of any genuine concern to cataloging rules. In fact neither AACR2 nor RDA mention anything remotely resembling a call number. Motivations for rules should not be based on a hidden agenda that is not part of the theory of the catalog. For the other functions you mention, would it not be sufficient and more plausible to have a much simpler decision process? Which might then be easier to make plausible even to scholars for their footnotes? Like, 1. Creator's name + preferred title Only in the absence of a creator: 2. Preferred title [ + Preferred name of corporate body] with [ + ... ] if and only if a corporate body is responsible AND mentioned on the primary source AND necessary to make the title unambiguous (i.e., not contained in the title) That's more or less what we have in the latest version of our rules, and it just works. (Of course, current MARC data can not generate a main entry like this in all cases.) B. Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Hybridized AACR2 records with RDA language expression tracings (?)
This tipping point is interesting. I think having the language in two fields has value. But it impacts productivity to fully transcribe. Margaret Maurer Editor, TechKNOW | Head, Catalog Metadata | Associate Professor Kent State University Libraries | 370 Library, P.O. Box 5190 | Kent, Ohio 44242-0001 330.672.1702 | mbmau...@kent.edumailto:mbmau...@kent.edu On Oct 28, 2013, at 3:52 PM, LISIUS, PETER plis...@kent.edumailto:plis...@kent.edu wrote: Dear all, I’d like an opinion on something relating to language expression access points in RDA. If, when copy cataloging AACR2 bibrec, you have an item representing two or more language expressions, are you able to apply RDA principles (in terms of the access points) WITHOUT fully upgrading the bibrec to RDA? Or, is this is a significant enough change to warrant fully converting the AACR2 bibrec to an RDA bibrec? I’m looking at some of the hybrid record policies on both the PCC and OCLC sites and this is not completely clear to me. For example, under AACR2 if you had a film in original language version dubbed into French, you would have had one access point representing both the original language and dubbed versions: 130 0 Sunset Blvd. (Motion picture). $l French English Under RDA, you’d have two different access points—one for the original, the other for the dubbed French version (and no 130): 730 0 Sunset Blvd. (Motion picture) 730 0 Sunset Blvd. (Motion picture). $l French. Thanks, Peter Peter H. Lisius, M.L.S., M.A. Music and Media Catalog Librarian Associate Professor Kent State University Libraries P.O. Box 5190 Kent, OH 44242-0001 (330) 672-6316 plis...@kent.edumailto:plis...@kent.edu
[RDA-L] relationship designator
I am cataloging a book where one author is writing in the style of a deceased author. The authority record says that the deceased author should be included as an added entry. Would the proper relationship designator for this author be author, creator, or something else entirely? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator
I believe that it would be entirely inappropriate to use any RDA I.2.1 relationship designator for the deceased author. I suppose it would be possible to make a case for having the author be an other person ... associated with a work (RDA I.2.2), but there don't seem to be any specific designators that fit the situation. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:26 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator I am cataloging a book where one author is writing in the style of a deceased author. The authority record says that the deceased author should be included as an added entry. Would the proper relationship designator for this author be author, creator, or something else entirely? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate body main entry
Bernhard said:
But Cutter is not of any genuine concern to cataloging rules.
No, but the effect on Cuttering should be, as should be display.
The A of RDA is not addressed at all by RDA,
The effect on access should be the prime concern in writing,
interpreting, and applying rules.
For the other functions you mention, would it not be sufficient and
more plausible to have a much simpler decision process?
I suspect nothing would prove simpler than our centuries long practice
of author plus title where there is an author, and title (qualified if
needed) if not author.
The inconsistency over time of entry of items with multiple authors,
and produced by corporate bodies, does create unfortunate variety, as
does our refusal to accept compilers and main entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
I asked Michael Gorman what I should add to the MRIs concerning using
the main entry of an earlier edition as the main entry of a later
edition, with a different order of authors in the statement of
responsibility.
He responded in part:
Not sure how to respond. It's a small point but it represents a
snapping of the fundamental Lubetzkyan principle in choosing access
points--i.e., the determination of who is chiefly responsible for the
intellectual or artistic content of the work being catalogued, and
assigning other access points flowing from that basic decision. That
snapped, the rule just says choose any access points associated with
what you are cataloguing. No theoretical underpinning, no
*consistency of application. In other words, that rule can't be fixed
and I would suggest the MRI's say 'ignore this rule; choose the name
of the person who is chiefly responsible for the intellectual or
artistic content of the edition of the work being catalogued as the
basis for the access point' (in this case, the author/first author of
the edition of the work being catalogued).
I'm open to other suggestions. But choosing the main entry on the
basis of the main entry of an earlier edition strikes me as
ridiculous. For every later edition we catalogue, are we supposed to
research the main entry of earlier editions? What if we have the 5th
ed., and the main entry has changed before? How far back are we
supposed to go? The first edition? The preceding edition? Cheez.
As John described it, we are not to use the earlier main entry if that
name is not in the statement of responsibility of the later edition.
What if it is in the title proper as mentioned earlier, e.g., Smith's
Torts, fifth edition by Tom Jones. Earlier entry was Smith, later
Jones, now?
I seems to me our long standing tradition is to catalogue the item in
hand. For reproductions, RDA (like AACR2 but contra the LCRI) has
moved in that direction. But in relation to later editions, it has
abandoned that very basic practice.
Like Michael, I am inclined to ignore that rule, as LAC and SLC did
the reproduction LCRI.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Colleagues, Would you please inform me what the appropriate relationship designator would be for the following based on the 245 field below? 245 10 |a Natural History Museum book of animal records : b thousands of amazing facts and unbelievable feats / |c Mark Carwardine. The Natural History Museum holds the copyright. I have reviewed Sections 6.18-19 and Appendix I in the RDA Toolkit for good examples and may be overlooking a "perfect match". 710 2 |a Natural History Museum (London, England), |e issuing body (?) Thank you. Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne LaBare asked
:
245 10 |a Natural History Museum book of animal records : ?b thousands
of amazing facts and unbelievable feats / |c Mark Carwardine.
710 2 |a Natural History Museum (London, England), |e issuing body (?)
Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator
Kevin said:
.. there don't seem to be any specific designators that fit the situation.
No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship possibilities.
In some situations there is no useful term, or we shoehorn an entity
into an ill fitting one, e.g., host institution for an art gallery
mounting an exhibition.
I begin to understand why so many clients want them removed. Let's
continue justifying added entries in description.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but just to sound off my agreement with
Mac's statement, No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship
possibilities and wondering yet again why there aren't more generic RDA
relators like contributor.
For example, I'm cataloging a work with the following statement of
responsibility:
produced and photographed by Joseph Daniel ; original preface, trial
transcripts, and new afterword by Daniel Ellsberg ; original reporting by Keith
Pope ; original poetry and Plutonian ode by Allen Ginsberg ; new and updated
history and reflection by LeRoy Moore ; activists appendix by August Freirich.
With the exception of the first-named author, there are no established RDA
terms for their specific roles. I suppose author is closest, but all of them
could more accurately be described as contributors, in my opinion.
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:26 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator
Kevin said:
.. there don't seem to be any specific designators that fit the situation.
No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship possibilities.
In some situations there is no useful term, or we shoehorn an entity into an
ill fitting one, e.g., host institution for an art gallery mounting an
exhibition.
I begin to understand why so many clients want them removed. Let's continue
justifying added entries in description.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
Isn't the decision based on whether the manifestation in hand represents a
revised edition of the original work or a new work in itself? If it's simply a
revision, changing the creator/work relationship seems problematic. If the
changes have resulted in a new work, then a new creator/work relationship is
implied. On the other hand, it's been argued that the work is represented by
the preferred title alone, so that might justify changing the primary creator
from edition to edition. I tend to think of a work as having a stable
relationship to a creator and not based on the vagaries of publisher
presentation, but a case could be made for the other approach. But then,
determining when a new manifestation represents a new work is difficult if the
original creator is irrelevant.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
Catalog Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
I asked Michael Gorman what I should add to the MRIs concerning using the main
entry of an earlier edition as the main entry of a later edition, with a
different order of authors in the statement of responsibility.
He responded in part:
Not sure how to respond. It's a small point but it represents a snapping of
the fundamental Lubetzkyan principle in choosing access points--i.e., the
determination of who is chiefly responsible for the intellectual or artistic
content of the work being catalogued, and assigning other access points flowing
from that basic decision. That snapped, the rule just says choose any access
points associated with what you are cataloguing. No theoretical underpinning,
no *consistency of application. In other words, that rule can't be fixed and I
would suggest the MRI's say 'ignore this rule; choose the name of the person
who is chiefly responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of the
edition of the work being catalogued as the basis for the access point' (in
this case, the author/first author of the edition of the work being
catalogued).
I'm open to other suggestions. But choosing the main entry on the basis of the
main entry of an earlier edition strikes me as ridiculous. For every later
edition we catalogue, are we supposed to research the main entry of earlier
editions? What if we have the 5th ed., and the main entry has changed before?
How far back are we supposed to go? The first edition? The preceding edition?
Cheez.
As John described it, we are not to use the earlier main entry if that name is
not in the statement of responsibility of the later edition.
What if it is in the title proper as mentioned earlier, e.g., Smith's Torts,
fifth edition by Tom Jones. Earlier entry was Smith, later Jones, now?
I seems to me our long standing tradition is to catalogue the item in hand. For
reproductions, RDA (like AACR2 but contra the LCRI) has moved in that
direction. But in relation to later editions, it has abandoned that very basic
practice.
Like Michael, I am inclined to ignore that rule, as LAC and SLC did the
reproduction LCRI.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Mac, Hedrun said: Corporate bodies are considered to be the originator if A) they have prepared the work or B) they have initiated and edited the work What about prepared by Alpha Consulting for Beta Society? Often societies, government offices, and other corporate bodies, commission a study, e.g., environmental assessments. I'm afraid you'll be scandalized: Apart from corporate originators, there is another class of corporate bodies according to RAK, called other participating corporate body. Among this group fall corporate bodies which have, e.g., stimulated, initiated, sponsored the work. RAK doesn't deem those worthy of getting an entry at all. So the Beta Society wouldn't even be added entry. Alpha Consulting would be the corporate originator, but would only get an added entry (unless it was named in the title proper, which seems unlikely in this case). In practice, of course, people do not always follow this restrictive rule and might still make an added entry if they think the Beta Society is important. There is also a special set of rules for usage in libraries of government agencies and parliaments, and these are much more generous with added entries. And, specialized libraries generally tend to make more entries than what is common in the more general academic libraries. But still, as I said before, the German tradition is indeed fairly restrictive with respect to corporate bodies. There is a widespread belief that the only people who ever search for a corporate body are librarians ;-) So this is another area where German catalogers will have to adapt a lot when we join the RDA community. We'll even have to get used to lots of new corporate bodies. In my workshops on RDA, I always get a good laugh when I explain that ships and presidents are considered to be corporate bodies. Heidrun Postscript: Another thing which is highly amusing for German catalogers are the rules on spirits. -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
J. McRee Elrod wrote: Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b. The 264 field appears as: 264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013. In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point) without any relationship designator even though the Natural History Museum holds the copyright and appears in the title? I found the term "copyright holder" [cph] in the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) , but am I correct in my understanding that we should avoid using these terms in RDA bib records if possible? Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
It seems that copyright holder is a legal relationship with very little bibliographic significance. Moreover, it's a relationship that is potentially volatile and has the possibility of being out of date soon after the statement's appearance. The relationship between the resource and the museum as described within the content of the resource itself is what is of bibliographic significance. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:08 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator J. McRee Elrod wrote: Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b. The 264 field appears as: 264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013. In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point) without any relationship designator even though the Natural History Museum holds the copyright and appears in the title? I found the term copyright holder [cph] in the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) , but am I correct in my understanding that we should avoid using these terms in RDA bib records if possible? Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.usmailto:lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us [Description: library logo color white backgroundSMALL] inline: image001.jpg
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Has anyone mentioned the 542 field? Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.25.428 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:22 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator It seems that copyright holder is a legal relationship with very little bibliographic significance. Moreover, it's a relationship that is potentially volatile and has the possibility of being out of date soon after the statement's appearance. The relationship between the resource and the museum as described within the content of the resource itself is what is of bibliographic significance. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:08 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator J. McRee Elrod wrote: Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b. The 264 field appears as: 264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013. In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point) without any relationship designator even though the Natural History Museum holds the copyright and appears in the title? I found the term copyright holder [cph] in the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) , but am I correct in my understanding that we should avoid using these terms in RDA bib records if possible? Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.usmailto:lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us [Description: library logo color white backgroundSMALL] inline: image001.jpg
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point)
without any relationship designator even though the Natural History
Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another
poster has advised that if no exact term works, use the larger
category. even if not the the lists. (The MRIs add those categories
to its list.) In this case you might consider $ecreator. The body
has a more important relationship to the item than just holding the
copyright.
You are right, I think, that the terms from the $4 code list should
not be used in $e. You could use the $4 code, but as I said, the
relationship is larger and more important than just copyright holder,
so I would not.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] RDA rule equivalence AACR rule 21.23C1
If I understand correctly there is no RDA rule that is equivalent to AACR's 21.23C1 If a sound recording containing works by different persons or bodies has a collective title, enter it under the heading for the person or body represented as principal performer So if I had a recording by a pop singer (place your favorite singer here) singing various jazz songs by different composers that singer would be regarded as a performer contributing to an expression and coded in MARC tag 700. Correct? If this is correct, this will create a lot of problems for libraries who shelve their material by either main entry or via some means of cuttering. Don Charuk Cataloguer/DBM Trainer Cataloguing Dept. Toronto Public Library Email : dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca Phone : 416 393-7760
Re: [RDA-L] RDA rule equivalence AACR rule 21.23C1
I believe the relevant instructions are at RDA 6.28.1.5. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Don Charuk Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:42 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA rule equivalence AACR rule 21.23C1 If I understand correctly there is no RDA rule that is equivalent to AACR's 21.23C1 If a sound recording containing works by different persons or bodies has a collective title, enter it under the heading for the person or body represented as principal performer So if I had a recording by a pop singer (place your favorite singer here) singing various jazz songs by different composers that singer would be regarded as a performer contributing to an expression and coded in MARC tag 700. Correct? If this is correct, this will create a lot of problems for libraries who shelve their material by either main entry or via some means of cuttering. Don Charuk Cataloguer/DBM Trainer Cataloguing Dept. Toronto Public Library Email : dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca Phone : 416 393-7760
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Can anyone point me to an inappropriate relationship designator? That sounds
a lot more fun...
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)
John
John Wagstaff
Head, Music Performing Arts Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel. 217-244-4070
e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point)
without any relationship designator even though the Natural History
Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another poster has
advised that if no exact term works, use the larger category. even if not the
the lists. (The MRIs add those categories to its list.) In this case you
might consider $ecreator. The body has a more important relationship to the
item than just holding the copyright.
You are right, I think, that the terms from the $4 code list should not be used
in $e. You could use the $4 code, but as I said, the relationship is larger
and more important than just copyright holder, so I would not.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA rule equivalence AACR rule 21.23C1
I should expand on that, I guess. 6.28.1.5 indicates, among other things, that a performance of a musical work involving substantial creative responsibility for adaptation, improvisation, etc., on the part of the performer or performers counts as an adaptation, and the authorized access point is constructed from the title plus the performer, rather than the original author of the music. So if the performer is considered to have adapted each of the works on the collective work, then he is the creator of each of them, and is also the creator of the collective work. If, on the other hand, the performer did not really adapt the works, then the performer is not the creator of the collective work. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:14 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA rule equivalence AACR rule 21.23C1 I believe the relevant instructions are at RDA 6.28.1.5. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Don Charuk Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:42 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA rule equivalence AACR rule 21.23C1 If I understand correctly there is no RDA rule that is equivalent to AACR's 21.23C1 If a sound recording containing works by different persons or bodies has a collective title, enter it under the heading for the person or body represented as principal performer So if I had a recording by a pop singer (place your favorite singer here) singing various jazz songs by different composers that singer would be regarded as a performer contributing to an expression and coded in MARC tag 700. Correct? If this is correct, this will create a lot of problems for libraries who shelve their material by either main entry or via some means of cuttering. Don Charuk Cataloguer/DBM Trainer Cataloguing Dept. Toronto Public Library Email : dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca Phone : 416 393-7760
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator
Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but just to sound off my agreement with Mac's statement, No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship possibilities and wondering yet again why there aren't more generic RDA relators like contributor. On this point, I have some comments. RDA expects a relationship between a name and the thing being cataloged to fit into one or more of the spectrum of elements in chapters 19-22. But the MARC standard isn't up to snuff in complying with this, e.g., a name in a 100 field can be either or both of two different name-to-work relationships. And a 700 field can be anything, really. So what do we do in MARC? First, realize that Appendix I is not the sole source WITHIN RDA for the name-thing relationship designators. If the only relationship you can muster is contributor for an added entry, then use that element name sourced from Chapter 20. Another way to look at it: those designators in Appendix I are finer terms for those broader relationship elements in chapters 19-22, e.g.: Contributor (20.2) - performer (App. I.3) - - actor (App. I.3) - - - voice actor (App. I.3) Or Publisher (21.3) - broadcaster (App. I.4) The sucktastical part is having to deal with the longer element names from those chapters. Like hell I'd use: 710 2- Company name, $e producer of an unpublished resource. That's why I've furnished--but haven't yet had recourse to apply--local designators for these long ones, e.g.: 710 2- Company name, $e producer (manifestation). These are formatted in the style of other RDA designators and not necessarily public-friendly, of course. Still, making concessions when applying RDA in MARC records is part of the game. And for thing-to-thing relationships, I've used $i Related work a few times already. I seem to have an aversion to making up designators. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
[RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod wrote: Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another poster has advised that if no exact term works, use the larger category. even if not the the lists. (The MRIs add those categories to its list.) In this case you might consider $ecreator. The body has a more important relationship to the item than just holding the copyright. Mark K. Elhert wrote: Another way to look at it: those designators in Appendix I are finer terms for those broader relationship elementsin chapters 19-22, e.g.: Contributor (20.2) - performer (App. I.3) - - actor (App. I.3) - - - voice actor (App. I.3) Is it correct to state that I can use "contributor" (20.2.1.3) or "creator" (I.2.1) when a specific MRI for an entity does not exist that reflects the entity's relationship to the bibliographical content of the work? Lynne LaBare Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com wrote: Is it correct to state that I can use contributor (20.2.1.3) or creator (I.2.1) when a *specific* MRI for an entity does not exist that reflects the entity's relationship to the bibliographical content of the work? If you choose not to search for a specific designator on another list (e.g., MARC relator code terms or LCSH or AAT or ...) or make up another designator out of thin air (a last resort, in my view), then, yes, you may use those broader RDA element names. The PCC advise as much for their institutions; see Guideline #4 in http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx . 100 1- Name, $e creator. 700 1- Name, $e contributor. 710 2- Company name, $e publisher. 710 2- Name, $e custodian. Here's a list of those RDA element names for those who don't have access to the cataloging manual. I've added their location via RDA rule numbers. These element names are define in RDA's glossary as well as at the RDA location assigned. 1. Name-Work Relationship (RDA 19) o creator (RDA 19.2) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.2.1 o other person, family, or corporate body associated with a work (RDA 19.3) - - [our local designator: other (work)] - - more specific designators under Appendix I.2.2 2. Name-Expression Relationship (RDA 20) o contributor (RDA 20.2) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.3.1 3. Name-Manifestation Relationship (RDA 21) o producer of an unpublished resource (RDA 21.2) - - [our local designator: producer (manifestation)] o publisher (RDA 21.3) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.4.2 o distributor (RDA 21.4) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.4.3 o manufacturer (RDA 21.5) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.4.1 o other person, family, or corporate body associated with a manifestation (RDA 21.6) - - [our local designator: other (manifestation)] 4. Name-Item Relationship (RDA 22) o owner (RDA 22.2) - - more specific designators under Appendix I.5.1 o custodian (RDA 22.3) o other person, family, or corporate body associated with an item (RDA 22.4) - - [our local designator: other (item)] - - more specific designators under Appendix I.5.2 -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne, If there isn't a good match, just don't record a relationship designator. Or if you can determine that a new designator is needed and what that would be, submit one for the JSC to consider (via the web form on the PCC website if you are a PCC library, or to the Cataloging Committee: Description and Access (CC:DA) of ALA). But in either case, don't agonize over this and spend an inordinate amount of time. Adam Schiff On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger wrote: Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:12:19 -0600 From: Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator Colleagues, Would you please inform me what the appropriate relationship designator would be for the following based on the 245 field below? 245 10 |a Natural History Museum book of animal records : ?b thousands of amazing facts and unbelievable feats / |c Mark Carwardine. The Natural History Museum holds the copyright. I have reviewed Sections 6.18-19 and Appendix I in the RDA Toolkit for good examples and may be overlooking a perfect match. 710 2 |a Natural History Museum (London, England), |e issuing body (?) Thank you. *Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us mailto:lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us Description: library logo color white backgroundSMALL * ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
If there is no appropriate term in RDA, you certainly may use a controlled term from another list. The problem in MARC is that we cannot specify what controlled list these terms come from. Adam Schiff On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger wrote: Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:07:47 -0600 From: Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator J. McRee Elrod wrote: Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b. The 264 field appears as: 264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013. In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point) without any relationship designator even though the Natural History Museum holds the copyright and appears in the title? I found the term copyright holder [cph] in the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) , but am I correct in my understanding that we should avoid using these terms in RDA bib records if possible? *Lynne J. LaBare Senior Librarian, Cataloger Provo Library at Academy Square 550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84601-1618 801.852.7672 801.852.6670 (fax) Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us mailto:lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us Description: library logo color white backgroundSMALL* ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
That would be a naughty designator rather than an inappropriate one!
It's way before Friday for humor, isn't it? ;0)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:29:48 +
From: Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Like one that would be used for a particular work by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I
suppose?
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Wagstaff, D John
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Can anyone point me to an inappropriate relationship designator? That
sounds a lot more fun...
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)
John
John Wagstaff
Head, Music Performing Arts Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel. 217-244-4070
e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point)
without any relationship designator even though the Natural History
Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another poster
has advised that if no exact term works, use the larger category. even if
not the the lists. (The MRIs add those categories to its list.) In this case
you might consider $ecreator. The body has a more important
relationship to the item than just holding the copyright.
You are right, I think, that the terms from the $4 code list should not be
used in $e. You could use the $4 code, but as I said, the relationship is
larger and more important than just copyright holder, so I would not.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
